Well, the point of the pop sociobiological claim is to legitimate nasty behaviors and
unjust social arrangements by reference to the principle "ought implies can": because
we can't do anything about our propensity towards hierarchy and competitiveness (so
it's said), we just have to live with
Okay, we agree in practice. _In practice_, AP's method involves
discouragement of scholarship as Justin defines it here. [BTW, I like the
typo, the spelling of "culkture," though maybe "kultur" would be more
appropriate.]
Of course we could drop the "method involves" and have a sentence
I can't hear the difference between a clean vinyl recording and a good CD
remaster. Some people talk about a "warmer" sound--it doesn't register with
me. --jks
The reason music used to sound like vinyl is that it was on vinyl, pops,
scratches, and all.
Only because the old LP's and
"Ken Hanly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are different types of analytical philosophy. . . .
Sure, but, I wasn't trying to give a history or a typology. I was just trying to
explain why the culture of APis anti-intellectual and hostile to humanistic
cultivation. Also, incidentally, to
Of course I think philosophers (of all people) ought to be cultured people of
wide curiosity. However, it's a fact that in high-powered reserach
institutions and places that aspire to be like those places, they are mostly
not. I don't think philosophers are unique here: we see a general
What made you think I think that big bourgeois judges are OK? Actually, elections are
exactly where I think that liberal political values belong--not "liberal" in the sense
of Democratic party, which isn't even liberal in the New Deal-Great Society sense
anymore, but in the sense of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/11/00 08:19PM
In reply to Jim and anybody else:
Before I ask other questions, please provide me with a brief answer to the
following very basic question.
We all apparently agree that "markets" exist since the beginning of recorded
history. But marxists distinguish
Michael: please sign me up on pen-l at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am changing my ISP.
This can also serve as notication to anyone who cares to have my new address.
--Justin Schwartz
And thsi article on Slovakia tells us what about Yugoslavia? Personally, I'll go with
Chomsky on this over you, Louis. --jks
In a message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:48:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Louis Proyect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2000
U.S. Steel's
I guess I am part of the stupid left that is blinkered by imperialist propaganda. I
don't see see how the ratio of state ownership in the former Yugoslavia is deeply
relevant to socialism or whether the regime was worth defending; I am aware that it
was high, but it was as high or higher in
Louis:
We just disagree about the importance of state ownership in the abstract. I support
the welfare provisions you describe, of course, but they are possible under social
democratic capitalism, and state ownership does not guarantee them either. However,
this is a very deep philosophical
I agree that welfare state capitalism was not on the agenda in the ex-bloc states, but
that does not mean that state ownership that is basically welfdarist is socialist any
more than social democracy is socialist.
In a message dated Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:33:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Louis
This is nothing new. They've been doing it since 1936. --jks
In a message dated Wed, 11 Oct 2000 1:00:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Charles Brown wrote:
CPUSA had a theory of American exceptionalism in the 1930's:
Americanism is 20th Century Socialism
In a message dated 10/11/00 6:08:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me a clear case of bad socialism (though it shouldn't be used
to say anything about socialism in general).
I can't remember any details, but Michael Vickery had a discussion of this
topic
In a message dated 10/11/00 10:19:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that "the choice" was not theirs. The bombings
economic sanctions, even aside from lesser forms of attacks and
propaganda, have shaped the nature of "the choice" made by a large
It seems to be a constant with Anglo politics that
they will always kill you or rob you on the basis of some
"principle", as the Irishman George Bernard Shaw once pointed out...
And this is worse than robbing or killing you on the basis of no principle? --jks
The CIA most certainly master-minded the counter-revolution in Yugoslavia.
It has their modus operandi stamped all over it.
They killed Kennedy too, along with Mob and the Cubans, decided to cut their losses.
And Elvis. And Marylin Monroe. And they have their eye on YOU, Louis! --jks
Right, nothing could help. By Lou's reasoning, the involvement of units of the Czarist
military in the Bolshevik revolution supports the idea that it was an imperialiast
coup inspired by German military intelligence. Actuslly there is rather more support
for that notion than the idea that Lou
In a message dated 10/8/00 4:52:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have never said that Milosevic is a
proponent of socialism
I am relieved; I thought you were losing it. One could have got that
impression.
(he is thought of as such in the Western mass
media by
In a message dated 10/8/00 6:01:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then we shouldn't be sorry to see the nationalist thugs at the CIA, DOD,
NSA etc go too.Once we figure out how to get rid of them of course
Surely we will not. Though they mostly aren't
In a message dated 10/9/00 1:08:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And so what do the two Pauls (PK PS) conclude about Adam Smith -- a
minor pre-
Ricardian?
PS is remembered for this stupid crackn about Marx, but it was not his
cionsidered view. He wrote several
In a message dated 10/9/00 8:35:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The hell it is. The MiloMafia made a killing off of hastily-privatized
state enterprises, dabbled in vicious wars in other countries, and went
through a big song and dance complaining about how the NATO
In a message dated 10/6/00 9:06:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me unfortunate when North American leftists become
spokespersons for CIA propaganda.
And I think it unfotrtunate when any leftist becomes an apologist for
nationalistic chauvinism and
In a message dated 10/7/00 9:07:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Inequality is higher now as well. Socialists are not interested in economic
growth for the same of economic growth. We are interested in social justice.
Not all socialists:
"What is a 'fair
In a message dated 10/7/00 9:12:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's like Yeltsin's shelling of the Duma.
I see, The present leaderships victory in a democratic election, despite
Slobo's virtually total control of the media and ability to stuff ballot
boxesa t will,
So the CIA brought out almost the entire population of Serbia against Slobo yesterday?
Cheez, I bet they wish. We will see whether the dire predictions about the new
leadership's policies turn out to be true; I actually think that the leadership is
rather nationalistic, but time will tell.
Louis has joined the "Hail the Red Army in Afghanistan" brigade. It took 10 years for
the CIA to bring out the population of Serbia against Slobo, but they did it, though
good socialists should have offered the Milosovic regime critical support. I am
amazed. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 6
I think Charles is a bit fuzzy about whom the Mafia candidate in Serbia was. We will
see about the new guys. But we _know_ about Slobo, a thug and murderer. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2000 3:10:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In support of
The US and the USSR are indeed both intolerant of dissident views, but the Yugoslav
model--which I, as market socialist defend and Louis has savaged for years as
antisocialist, essentially capitalist, a betrayal, etc, ad nauseum--as been dead in
the Yugoslav rump republic for almosta decade.
This was a Spartacus League slogan in the 1970s. Anyway, do you defend Slobo against
the new regime? I don't think so. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2000 5:04:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Brad DeLong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Louis has joined the "Hail the Red Army in Afghanistan"
Well, it is a theory, because it purports to explain the phenomena. Of course, demonic
possession is a theory too. That and $3.75 wil buy you a cuppa cappucino. --jks
In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:48:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Devine
In a message dated 9/30/00 12:02:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Martin Luther had come along a
century and a half later, there would have been no one in western
Europe to develop Copernican physics after the trial of Galileo. It's
certainly possible that
In a message dated 9/28/00 12:24:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it is clear to me who the true heirs of the Nazis are.
The folks who recruited them for the CIA?
Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegience
Is ruled by expedience
In a message dated 9/28/00 12:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So in effect
the two sides of this debate is that Brenner's explanation for the rise of
Europe has great merit but so does the argument made by other marxists
from the "periphery" (see also David
In a message dated 9/29/00 12:43:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah. Tom Lehrer...
Where oh where is his equal today?
Nowhere, then or now.
"in German oder Englisch I know how to count down
And I'm learning Chinese, says Wernher von Braun."
There is a true
How to determine whether someone is one the major historians: There is a book called
The Brenner Debate, with articles and responses discussing B's thesis about the rise
of capitalism. If the people in your field name a major debate after you, such that it
can be referred to by just your name,
Louis, this is unworthy. Brenner like Faurisson? If I didn't know you better, I'd say
you were a fool. As it is, the remark approaches legal defamation. Need I point out
that being refuted by being taken seriously is indeed the sign og major scholarship,
while being refuted by being trashed as
OK, maybe there is something wrong with the Big Name structure of academia: I wouldn't
dispute that. Part of my point is that Brenner is a Big Name. Not all Big Names are
any good: I know lots who aren't. But Brenner is a Big Name who is first rate. part of
the way you can tell this is that he
Many people have complained about my typos. they are no doubt due to my bkindfolding
by imperialist propaganda.
The argument that the ethical basis of Marxism is worker's is respectable, but, I
believe, a mistaken reading of Marx. there is an extensive debate on this. A main
figure on the
I am not an academic or an economist. You will have to decide for yourself whether I
am a faithful servant of the IMF. --jks
In a message dated Tue, 26 Sep 2000 7:45:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Nestor Miguel
Gorojovsky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
En relación a [PEN-L:2302] Re: Re: The US
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have property and some people have more than
others in society. Every few years I try to convince
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut
attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has
higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both
Fair enough. Actually I think being an academic is more of a vice and being
an economist is a venial sin. As for stepping further in that direction, I
really to think sometimes it is best to say, Look, I don't care who hit whom
first: we have a Situation here, and what are we going to do about
The hypocrisy of US foreign policy requires no comment, although no dount it demands
outrage. But no one outside his thuggish clique could mourn the defeat of Milosovic.
--jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:06:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ken Hanly"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not surprised, but I am disappointed, to find Louis falling in with the defense
of the Milosovic regime, even to comparing it with the Sandinistas, whose mistakes
were at least part of a policy of promoting a government policy intendedto promote the
welfare of ordinary Nicaraguans, rather
I agree with Michael that this discussion is unlikely to be productive, and will not
debate apologists for Milosovic. If he is no worse that our own misleaders, he is also
no better. I remain an ignorant victim of NATO propaganda and blinkered by imperialist
hoodwinking . . . . --jks
In a
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug
I am seriously uninterested in who did what to whom first in Kosovo or elsewhere. That
always leads to the argument that it is OK for the first victim to do the same thing
back, a notion that I, geneally unsuccessfully, continually try to disabuse my kids of.
Kosovars are not innocent
In a message dated 9/25/00 4:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CB: But "value" and "exchange-value" are not quite exactly the same thing
?
This has probably been answered, but no. Value is socially necessay abstract
labor time embodied in the commodity. Exchange
In an otherwise disgraceful, though widely cited, essay on the LTV, G.A,
Cohen distinsguishes usefully between the strict and vulgar LTVs. The vulgar
LTV is that labor is the source of all value. For Marx this is true by
definition; he makes a few sideswipes at subjective value theories, which
In a message dated 9/25/00 5:57:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely historical facts are not unimportant, when one discusses the
"judgment of history," no? In any case, what FAIR is trying to do,
of course, is not to fuel disputes over "who did what to whom
Yeah, we post-Sraffans always get this from believers in the LTV: "It's too deep you
someone with your analytical equipment to understand." No doubt. but HK have a
sympathetic thoughvery critical treatment of what is living and dead in the TLV in
their The Political Economy of Marx, 2d ed.
In a message dated 9/21/00 4:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the
"solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See
the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical
In a message dated 9/19/00 4:52:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does California have decent co-op/worker ownership laws like Oregon's so a
health services for seniors co-op could be set up.
Tell me more about the Oregon laws. --jks
In a message dated 9/14/00 6:45:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Could someone explain for non-economists the terms
Micro- and Macro-economics. When did they arise?
Are they tied to any particular theory/theories of economics
or of the purpose of economics? Etc?
In a message dated 9/15/00 12:17:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why gas
prices are high. Do you have any inputs that I should pass on?
Isn't the FTC looking into possible antritrust violations? Tell him to ask
over there. --jks
Dulce ET Decorum est pro patria mori.
In a message dated 9/13/00 11:51:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know: I was trying to say "sweet decorum," though perhaps Justin will
want to reenact the scene from "Monty Python's Life of Brian," in which the
Roman guard lectures Brian on the poor Latin grammar
In a message dated 9/13/00 4:27:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad
things are done and were able to stop the bad things happenings.
When socialist nations did intervene, imperialist nations did
They are difficult, although there is some nice stuff in them. Hard as it is, there is
some pretty language in the cahpter on commodity fetishism. The standard English
translations are not great--Moore 7 Aveling is very Victorian and not all that
accurate, and the new MECW slightly cleaned up
What does geography suggest that Alsace-Lorraine is part of, France or Germany? Or
more to the point today, East Jerusalem? --jks
In a message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2000 1:43:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Brad DeLong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For what they are worth, my views on the Malvinas are
Well, this confuses plainness and accessibility with literary mastery, which is the
question I raised. Lenin' stuff is plain and accessible, but not beautiful. Marx's is
often difficult, but generally beautiful. It has what he said in his early letter to
his dad was true of Hegel, a "grotesque
Hume reports it to be a fact that we will not give up on induction or
(another target of his skeptical attacks) personal identity over time. Does
he have an a priori argument that we could not? No. Is it inconstistent for
him to say, We have always used these concepts, so we always will? Well,
In a message dated 9/10/00 11:33:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the claim that "we always will" - i.e.
that "in other instances" the repetition, the expectation and the belief
will be conjoined - cannot be justified
Of coutrse it can't. If it could, then there
Hume would say, more constant conjunction is what you have--here, the CC of
the bell with the CC of the two other things. --jks
In a message dated 9/10/00 12:13:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I give up. What would Hume say? The bell is warning you that constant
Ditto. --jks
In a message dated 9/10/00 12:16:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Stephen Cullenberg
Doug
People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I
have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions.
. . .
This misreads Hume. Hume is not a radical individualist--quite unlike Hobbes,
who really does give us a world of atomic of atomic individuals bound
together only by contract. Hume's metaphysics is a mosaic of events that
merely happen together, but his social philosophy is genuinely social.
In a message dated 9/10/00 3:57:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can be a radical skeptic anarchist, to be sure (e.g. Paul
Feyerabend), instead of a conservative, for instance.
For example. F thought he was a realist, btw.
My contention is, though, that
In a message dated 9/10/00 4:10:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
ustin wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/00 11:33:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the claim that "we always will" - i.e.
that "in other instances" the repetition, the
In a message dated 9/10/00 4:48:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What justifies Hume's belief that nature or customs _cause_ our
habits of inductive inference? Hume might shrug say, "yes, there
is contradiction, but you see, I can't help it, neither can you."
Not
In a message dated 9/10/00 7:20:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hume was anti-egalitarian
Yes
and would be at home in the
Mises-Hayek-Nozickian world, I believe.
No. He's an old-timey Burkean conservative, not a market fanatic. He'd be a
"wet" Tory or a
In a message dated 9/9/00 10:46:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
How could Hume reach this conclusion without employing induction?
Oh, he admits--he insists!--that we cannot but employ it. He just thinks we
cannot justify that employment in the face of his skeptical
In a message dated 9/9/00 12:53:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Marx, for instance, often points to Shakespeare as a source of insight into
capitalist motives in general and into the money-making and money-loving
motives in particular.
There is an excellent book by
In a message dated 9/9/00 2:28:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the German professors here -- not a radical at all -- uses Marx as
an
example of the best in German writing -- not of medium grade.
The _best_ in German writing in Goethe, the only writer in
In a message dated 9/9/00 3:15:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ken Hanly wrote:
Reason is not capable of really questioning
induction since reason is powerless against such a natural instinct.
How then is Hume able to question induction?
Ken misspeaks,
In a message dated 9/9/00 5:05:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can't we dismiss all these questions about induction and epistemology and
ontology in a pragmatic way, i.e., say that our doubts and skepticism are
really irrelevant if they don't act as a guide to
I have read and indeed taught the major pomos poststructuralists--Derrida, DeMan,
Foucault, DeLeuze Guttari, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty, and made an effort to get a
grip on Irigaray, Kristev, Butler, and Spivak. I am pretty confident that they share a
family resemblance in advocating:
1)
BUFFALOS? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 2:45:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
Me, an economist? Sir, there is my gage! And having shown little interest in
philosophy? What would show a lot. pray tell, beyond gettimng a PhD in it and working
the field until the jobs ran out? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 3:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL
I had the same sort of training as Ken Hanly, somewhat later on, basically
high powered analytical philosophy: rather than Austin and Bowsma, my icons
were Quine, Davidson, and Rawls, my teachers Rorty, Harman, Kuhn, and Scanlon
(undergrad), Gibbard, Railton, and Mary Hesse (grad). I did pick
Yoshie asked:
It doesn't seem to me to require a belief that statements (e.g. E=
MC2) are Platonic entities in order to believe that what some
statements refer to existed before the statements were made. Am I
missing something?
* * *
No, you are right. But that is not what I said. What
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say. Do you
find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush? --jks
Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost
impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of
In a message dated 9/7/00 3:54:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended)
in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable
opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that
In a message dated 9/7/00 6:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why haven't post-modernists taken Hume seriously? Especially since
a lot of what I read from them sounds like it was cribbed from Hume?
Hume is an empiricist. He takes science seriously. He writes
In a message dated 9/7/00 9:41:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[after this message, this discussion will be off-list, given Michael
Perelman's preferences.]
I don't seewhy. There are a lot of people who are interested in the questions
being discussed here, even if
I wasn't picking on Nicole, who is after all a student, but on supposedly professional
scholars in the pomo mode whose analysis is no better. I except some of the big shots:
Derrida, Foucault, DeLeuze, Rorty, etc., are quite sophisticated. Lytoard, however, is
not. --jks
In a message dated
I was a professional philosopher of science, taught at Michigan, Cambridge, Kalamazoo
College, and Ohio State. Now I am a lawyer.
You present the argument, suggested once by the Harvard phil of science prof Hilary
Putnam, that we should conclude that all of our beliefs are wrong because all
In a message dated 9/6/00 9:07:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Laws of course only exist in thought (except for pure Platonists,
who believe that forms or ideas are more real than the actualities
they refer to or describe). What exists outside of thought are the
In a message dated 9/7/00 12:04:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I don't think you and I are in any real disagreement on this. "Laws
*state*."
"e=mc2" *states* something about light, but were minds not around to
make the statement light would do just fine by itself.
Touche, Charles.
In a message dated Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:47:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And Capital has Canada.
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/04/00 04:07PM
In a message dated 9/4/00 3:58:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
BTW, ever
In a message dated 9/5/00 7:10:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
According to Carrol it is Ottawa.
-
Sez you, sez the postmodernist. --jks
In a message dated 9/5/00 8:06:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Academics are in a position of authority. Authority
that historically does not pan out. I have never been in a class in which
what a past academic said was taken for truth. And the reality of the
In a message dated 9/4/00 2:27:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So should I issue a blanket condemnation of economics as
a criminal enterprise, to quote Jim O'Connor?
It's sort of tempting, isn't it? --jks
In a message dated 9/4/00 2:37:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most "truths" aren't of the 2+2=4 variety, at least the truths of
political economy. Is a certain income distribution fair? Is a
certain production process efficient? Are men and women equal? Where
does
In a message dated 9/4/00 3:58:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
BTW, ever met anyone who didn't know the capital of Canada?
Canada has a capital? --jks
In a message dated 9/4/00 5:34:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll answer you after right after you answer this question. Are children
an
exploited class?
Are they an investment good? A consumption good? I just can't make up my
mind.
Doug
An expensive
In a message dated 9/2/00 6:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Here's a question: If there are two scholars, one male and one female, who
write exceptionally on fundamentalism which would be cited, referenced,
quoted and read more often in a classroom? If you can't
The tend to put meaning(less) parentheses around parts of words, use terms like
"discourse," "privilege," and "theorize" freely, dispise essentialism and
"foundationalism," "valorize 'difference,'" and think ill of class analysis, science,
or objectivity. They are armed, but not dangerous, or
This seems to be capitalism among co-ops. Maybe that is what
Justin means by market socialism. Mill's musings on competition would please
the most ardent free market capitalist.
* * *
Well, it's not the sort of market socialism I would advocate. As many of you know, I
would get rid of private
It's only "thin" in being concise. Most of Hirschman's writings are terse, elegant,
concise, laconic, and crystalline. This is another of his marvels of compressed
erudition. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:16:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael Perelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1 - 100 of 405 matches
Mail list logo
