Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
At 15:15 25/06/00 -0700, you wrote: >So I am going to quote from Jim Devine's web pages about the disability of >Asperge's syndrome in order to look deeper into these dogma like ways of being. Interesting web pages I agree, but I cannot find this one. What is the title, and which section is it in? Chris Burford London
RE: Re: RE: "We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previous years"
Eugene Coyle wrote: > I would be very careful about getting close to Albert Bartlett. > He is a key > figure in the zero population and anti-immigrant world. > > He turns his interesting arithmetic into an argument for solving > environmental and resource problems by dealing with population > and little else. > I think you are missing the point rather. Let me put it this way: did Newton's theories about alchemy disqualify him as a scientist who discovered the laws of gravity? Did Pascal's weird religious mysticism disqualify him as a mathematician? Does Bartlett's arithmetic not count because Bartlett has unaccaptable ideas about population? Don't think so. If you think his arithmetic, what show the unsustainability of capitalisms's energetics-base, is 'interesting' what do you propose to do about it, other than change the subject? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mine, Of course Bartlett is not a Marxist. That only adds weight to his central conclusion, which is about thew terminally unsustainable nature of capitalist crisis and not about population growth (don't get sidetracked into wasting time on his *opinions* about that; it's his *arguments* about exponential growth that need to addressed). We need to orient our politics around THAT understanding. What does it mean to say that capitalism is in TERMINAL crisis? What will happen in the next few decades and how will the Left concretely use whatever chances it has got to affect the outcome? Business as usual is OFF the menu. Population-growth is a red-herring issue; the problem will be to avoid population die-ff and this is NOT Malthusianism but a sober assessment of the world's addiciton to oil and the consequences of it running out. BTW 20% of US electricity is generated by nuclear. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th > century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
re: dialectical method
Jim and Justin have been going back and forth on this. Jim has outlined his conception of the dialectic method. And Justin has responded to what he considers the vagueness of that method and prefers a more explicit exposition and examination of propositions. Part of the problem in my opinion, and the root of the disagreement, stems from the fact that Jim has consistently left out one of the most important components of a dialectical method. One must move constantly from the abstract to the concrete. Jim has focussed on the abstract, but the method becomes simply words unless one is constantly dealing with the concrete as well. For instance, Lou gave a quote from Marx last week which summed up Marx's theory of historical change, and rightly pointed out that Cohen interpretation of that quote dealt only with the abstract aspects. (Cohen is not alone in this fault. It is common amongst many readers of Marx. Others focus only on the concrete. Taking their clue from the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. Or on Marx's writings which emphasis class struggle.) Focussing on only the abstract can soon lead one into absurd interpretations and esoteric language which quickly becomes meaningless. "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or what is but a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto." Technological determinists interpretations of this quote (and others) from Marx suffer from that fault. How do something so abstract as "material productive forces of society" and "existing relations of production" come into conflict? Only in the mind of an intellectual who reifies that two abstractions. The conflict plays itself out on the concrete level. When technology and property relations are in conflict, people who have an interest in either the existing structure of property rights fight it out with those who have an interest in the new technology, and a new system of property rights is the result. In my reading, Marx is proposing that in this particular dialectic the material productive forces will be the strong moment. To use Marx's theory productively however, I will reiterate my initial point. To separate the abstract from the concrete (or vice versa) one is soon lead to take absurd positions. All this is poorly expressed, but I have my main point comes through. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
dialectical method
This discussion reminds me why I do not like like discussions of "method"; and please stop suggesting that I am illiterate. Anyway, I've had it; I'm glad that you get new insights using your "method"; I would nefver criticize what works to inspire someone. --jks
Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Greetings Economists, Chris Burfurd asks what web page I got my quotes from. I would like to add another correction also. The book I quoted from is called "Sex Between Men", not just the subject matter. A history of male fucking since WWII. The web site is, http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS/as_chronicles.html These are Jim Devine's accounts mainly of the meaning of his life experience in a particular narrow range of disability. However, I want to emphasize again that this kind of disability shows us not to assume that feeling is central to human social systems. Human feeling is important in terms of the stickiness of human cohesion, but that as Jim points out in his accounts, kinds of labor processes are enhanced by a relative lack of understanding. And this getting away from able bodied thinking is very important in the Marxist sense of seeing the dialectical whole of economic systems. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential population growth means exponential energy consumption. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Population-growth > is a red-herring issue; > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th > > century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd) >
Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution
G'day all, Unlike Justin, I was actually enjoying his run-in with Jim (and Rod's apposite intervention) - it put me in mind of Heilbroner's *The Nature and Logic of Capitalism* and one of a hundred quotes therefrom which seem appropriate here: "It seems hardly necessary to state again the inherent complexity of the idea of capital. Marx's vast opus is an exhaustive exploration of the concept that is its title, and yet at its end, the idea of capital remains protean and elusive - not because of a failure of Marx's analytic powers but because those very powers have revealed the inherent dialectical aspects that render capital resistive to precise empirical formulations of a conventional kind." Justin's impatience with debates about methodology might be the product of living in an intellectual environment where one finds oneself confonted with one of three types of political economist: the Marxist determinist (accumulation will stuff itself), neo-classical determinist (because we're all really homo economicus, such and such will happen and all boats will ultimately rise as a consequence), and the dialectician - who can't seem ever to identify all the relations that constitute a development, don't know whether superstructure or base is going to be decisive in any such moment, and don't know whether the decisive agency will be that of structure (conditions not of our choosing) or a suddenly self-institutionalising dissenting movement (the 'we' who exist in said conditions). Determinists are, for the purposes of analysing and explaining any specific momentin within which we find ourselves, useless - because they're wrong (neither socialism nor risen fleets ever eventuate and ever seem closer). That leaves what I take to be the true dialectician, who is never wrong, because s/he's always content with the useless (by natural scientific standards of proof and prediction). Look at Mark's focus on oil. Yeah, we're hooked on the stuff, and, yeah, our principles of self-organisation incline us to bring hither the moment of ultimate depletion. But those principles are more adaptable in such moments (precisely because the capital relation can force any short-run human price - sans that suddenly self-institutionalising dissenting movement, anyway) than Marx could ever know. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed, a wise man once said - a point that must resonate as we have one foot on the stairway to the stars. In that light, I'm not sure the physical environment will limit capitalism's march through history. Its vengeance will kill (is killing) a lot of us, but we are, after all, neither the authors of capitalism's motions nor an object of interest for it. Capitalist humanity can survive a lot of human dying, as we well know. And the environment within which it functions is on the verge of growing - and has the potential for infinite growth - the argument that capitalism is an open system reaching inexorably and fatefully for the limits of the closed system in which it is imprisoned holds today. But if 'we're' still here in a hundred years, we might well have a galaxy at 'our' disposal. Some argue that the forces of production have left the relations upon which they once depended behind. But what does that mean? That we can house, feed, educate, and fulfill six or seven billions without recourse to the capitalist relation as of now? That we could now come closer to that goal than the capitalist relation ever could? And are they even the central questions? Or is the central question to do with that self-institutionalising dissenting movement? Human agency - the self-conscious drive to become the subject of our history, if you like. I have no idea why these movements pop up when they do - and why they don't when they don't. Neither the hideousness nor the prosperity of the moment seems decisive, nor the productive capacity of the base du jour, nor the presence or absence of large proletariats. Such movements have yet to get very far in their own lofty terms (an opinion I know not to be shared here), but they have left their indelible mark on our superstructures, I think. Just possibly, capitalism will slowly transform itself - as corporations become impossible to diagnose and prognosticate upon - reliant on millions of unpredictable stock holders in myriads of unpredictable settings, on billions of different workers and consumers in thousands of different settings, on commodities that just don't meet the requirements of 'the commodity' (eg. information), on hard-to-legitimise local polities - and on the exponential growth of chaotically related mutually-dependent variables that goes with all that ... ... and on managerial research methodologies that can never hope to capture even an approximation to explanation, never mind prediction. It doesn't matter how big and fast their computers, they either won't know what numbers to cr
Re: dialectical method
At 07:52 AM 06/27/2000 -0400, you wrote: >This discussion reminds me why I do not like like discussions of "method"; >and please stop suggesting that I am illiterate. you are clearly not illiterate (far from it). But you don't grace us with the benefits of your literacy to back up your arguments, until pushed to do so. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[Fwd: Leonard Peltier Statement]
Forwarded message: From: "LPDC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Peltier Statement and a note Dear friends, Below is Leonard Peltier's statement for the 25 year memorial and honoring at Oglala. We will be unable to answer emails until June 29. If you need to communicate with us, please send your messages after June 28th. Thank you. In Solidarity, LPDC June 26, 2000 Greetings Friends and Supporters, Twenty-five years has passed since the fatal shoot-out on the Jumping Bull Ranch occurred, and for twenty-five years I have been forced away from my people and my home, which I consider Oglala to be. I miss being with all of you as I have always loved and respected the Lakota ways. I have always admired the Lakota people, especially the Oglalas for their strength, determination, and courage to continue the struggle to maintain our traditional ways and sovereignty. Not a single day passes when I do not dream of being home with you. Twenty-four years is a long time to be in prison, but if I was out and you were facing the same kind of brutality you faced under the Wilson regime, I would not hesitate to stand next to you and resist the violent oppression you were forced to endure. But I am not out, I remain locked up in here, and it has not been an easy 24 years. Prison is a repulsive, violent place to exist in. But again, none of this could stop me from standing with you until the great Oglala Nation is free. I know a lot of problems continue to exist for you. Corrupt tribal government officials are still taking advantage of the people and crimes committed against Natives receive little if no priority. It makes me very sad to know that after everything we went through in the 1970's our people still continue to suffer so much. The memory of all of those who lost their lives during that time also continues to haunt me. As we gather together during this time of remembrance, I am aware that the FBI has also organized a 25-year memorial for their dead agents. I do not fault them nor do I disagree with what they are doing. I think all people should gather in memorial for any of their fallen. But, when you analyze this whole event of theirs, you are slapped in the face with the cold reality of racism. Not once have they, nor will they mention our fallen warriors and innocent traditionalists slaughtered in the 70's after Wounded Knee II. They will not even as much as mention Joe Killsright Stuntz. We cannot even get an acknowledgement from them that they were wrong in supporting such a cruel and corrupt regime as Dick Wilson's. They continue to deny that any Indian people were killed as a result of their direct input with the terrorist squad, the GOONS. The fact is they do not think of Indian people as human beings. Whenever you deny that such atrocities happen, and we know they did happen, it only means they don't consider the people who died to be human. Hitler's regime felt the same about the Jews. But please don't misunderstand my frustration for a lack of sympathy about the loss of the agents' lives. I do feel for the families of the agents because I know first hand what it is like to lose a loved one. I have lost many loved ones through the years due to senseless violent acts. If I had known what was going on that day, and I could have stopped it, I would have. But in order for us to bring reconciliation to what was a very difficult time we first must have justice. We must continue to ask when the lives of our people will be given the same respect and value as others. When will they stop carelessly locking up our people without applying the scrutiny and care the judicial system is supposed to guarantee? When will guilty beyond a reasonable doubt become a standard that applies to us? When will our guilt have to be proven, rather than assumed? We suffer equally, but we are not treated equally. There is hope for a better future and for peace. But in order for us to live in peace, we must be able to live in dignity and without fear. In closing, I want to say that your voices are important and your involvement in the effort to gain my freedom is crucial. You know the truth and only you can express the reality of those brutal times. It is also important that you explain to the youth what we stood for and why, because they are our hope for the future. They can carry out our dream for our people to have pride in their culture, good schools, food, and health care, and most importantly, justice. Please know that I continue to be here for you too, although I am limited in what I can do from behind these walls. However, I will continue help in whatever I can from here. The one thing my situation has brought me at least, is a voice, and my voice is your voice. So please do not hesitate to write me or contact the LPDC to inform me of what is going on. I am growing older now and my body is beginning to deteriorate. I sometimes wonder just how
Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution
Rob said: > Unlike Justin, I was actually enjoying his run-in with Jim (and Rod's apposite intervention) . . . Well, someone should, I guess. > Justin's impatience with debates about methodology might be the product of living in an intellectual environment where one finds oneself confonted with one of three types of political economist: the Marxist determinist (accumulation will stuff itself), neo-classical determinist (because we're all really homo economicus, such and such will happen and all boats will ultimately rise as a consequence), and the dialectician - who can't seem ever to identify all the relations that constitute a development, don't know whether superstructure or base is going to be decisive in any such moment, and don't know whether the decisive agency will be that of structure (conditions not of our choosing) or a suddenly self-institutionalising dissenting movement (the 'we' who exist in said conditions). No, I would cedrtainlt happily discuss historical necessity, base-superstructure determination--actually we got onto this because I proposed in the context of ideology that functional explanation was the only sensible and coherent way I knew to make out that sort of determination, methodological individualism and holism, or any of a host of other concrete substantive issues in social theory or Marxist thought. What I find a yawn, and the way this discussion developed was an example, is abstract discussions of Method. Jim, although his own work is more or less pure analytical Marxism as I conceive it, is allergic to the particular prejudices and approaches of the former AMs. He thinks Cohen is wrongheaded, but not in a productive way, etc. He prefers something he calls dialectics. Fine. This is not getting us anywhere. I often disagree with Cohen, Elster, etc., but I find these disagreements stimulating and productive. Jim would rather read Althusser and the Frankfurt School, although his own work reads a lot more like Roemer than Adorno. I haven't the patience for most of the F-School and I think Althusser is a fraud, fulkl of talk of rigor when he wouldn't know a rigorous argument if it bit him on the ass. I also read Hegel, who, in contrast, is genuinely rigorous, but my stuff also reads more like Roemer. But hey, all you can do is do what interests you and if it interests others too, that's great. Methodological discussions don't do it for me, so if anyone wants to talk substance, I'm ! ! game. --jks >>
Re: RE: Re: RE: "We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previous years"
I propose to work on cutting work and cutting consumption, not get involved with racist population fanatics. And by the way, compound interest is an old discovery. Gene Coyle Mark Jones wrote: > Eugene Coyle wrote: > > > I would be very careful about getting close to Albert Bartlett. > > He is a key > > figure in the zero population and anti-immigrant world. > > > > He turns his interesting arithmetic into an argument for solving > > environmental and resource problems by dealing with population > > and little else. > > > > I think you are missing the point rather. Let me put it this way: did > Newton's theories about alchemy disqualify him as a scientist who discovered > the laws of gravity? Did Pascal's weird religious mysticism disqualify him > as a mathematician? Does Bartlett's arithmetic not count because Bartlett > has unaccaptable ideas about population? Don't think so. If you think his > arithmetic, what show the unsustainability of capitalisms's energetics-base, > is 'interesting' what do you propose to do about it, other than change the > subject? > > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Assumptions? Exponential growth? On population. For most of human history populations have fairly stable. There have been two periods of very rapid growth. The neolithic revolution and the industrial revolution. In the rich industrial countries, population growth has stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world. On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology? For practical purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite. The real ecological problem is what to do with our wastes. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population > growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy > consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential > population growth means exponential energy consumption. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > > Population-growth > > is a red-herring issue; > > > Mark Jones > > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th > > > century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd) > > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mark, The mainstream environmental movement is almost totally focused on what you call a "red herring" -- population control. There are major and very well funded efforts underway to take over the environmental issue. The Sierra Club, the only large group with any form of member input into policy, has been ripped apart by the population issue. The other large environmental groups look at the issues you focus on in this thread, agree that the dangers are large, and then only work on population control. If population control is the preferred answer -- and it is mostly "them" that need to stop breeding -- then the world is going to be a very ugly place. Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism and denying that there is a resource crisis? The argument by him and his ilk is that things will be fine if only "they" stop breeding. Gene Coyle Mark Jones wrote: > Mine, > Of course Bartlett is not a Marxist. That only adds weight to his central > conclusion, which is about thew terminally unsustainable nature of > capitalist crisis and not about population growth (don't get sidetracked > into wasting time on his *opinions* about that; it's his *arguments* about > exponential growth that need to addressed). > > We need to orient our politics around THAT understanding. What does it mean > to say that capitalism is in TERMINAL crisis? What will happen in the next > few decades and how will the Left concretely use whatever chances it has got > to affect the outcome? Business as usual is OFF the menu. Population-growth > is a red-herring issue; the problem will be to avoid population die-ff and > this is NOT Malthusianism but a sober assessment of the world's addiciton to > oil and the consequences of it running out. > > BTW 20% of US electricity is generated by nuclear. > > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th > > century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Re: dialectical method
The debate over dialectics is inevitable. It does not work mechanistically or automatically. So, there are no "correct" answers that everybody could agree upon. It is still superior to the false precision of the neoclassical approach, but it does have a certain degree of subjectivity involved. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution
Justin wrote: >Jim, although his own work is more or less pure analytical Marxism as I >conceive it, is allergic to the particular prejudices and approaches of >the former AMs. Je ne suis pas un Marxiste analytique. (I'm sorry if my grammar is bad. It's been more than 30 years since high school French.) If it weren't for the yucky connotations of plastic and the like, I'd call myself a _synthetic_ Marxist, in the sense that _synthesis_, not analysis, is key. Analysis, by definition, refers to "separation of a whole into its component parts." This seems a necessary component of rational thought. But it's hardly sufficient. Among other things, it ignores the way in which the whole structures, shapes, and limits the parts. (To paraphrase Levins and Lewontin, parts make the whole _and_ the whole make the parts, as part of dynamic mutual interaction.) So synthesis is needed, too. My effort is to (1) figure out what's valid about different perspectives, including those of AMs, NCs, and functionalist sociologists, i.e., to find the rational core of their thought, if it exists; and then to (2) bring the various valid parts of these perspectives into a coherent (and dialectical) whole that fits empirical reality as much as possible, in order to maximize our understanding of the empirical world. BTW, the first phase involves _criticism_, which might involve some AM-type criticism, i.e., that a theory doesn't fit with received mainstream social-science method, logic, or results, but AM itself is also subject to criticism. (Not all views have a rational core, BTW. Consider holocaust revisionism.) Strictly speaking, we should reject the whole idea of competing "schools" of Marxism. Most if not all of them include wrong elements, whereas most of them include right elements, so we can learn from all of them. The whole idea of competing schools is merely an academic game or a sectarian distraction. In sum, I think that the "particular prejudices and approaches" of the estwhile AMs are part and parcel of their method, a method which I see as partial (one-sided). >He thinks Cohen is wrongheaded, but not in a productive way, etc. He >prefers something he calls dialectics. Fine. This is not getting us anywhere. Justin refers to (and harshly and abstractly criticizes) something called dialectics without allowing me to clarify what I mean. He says that method can't be separated from the object of study (and therefore somehow method doesn't exist) but when I try to explain the dialectical method in terms of a specific object of study (e.g., macroeconomics), he decides he doesn't want to talk about it. >I often disagree with Cohen, Elster, etc., but I find these disagreements >stimulating and productive. Jim would rather read Althusser and the >Frankfurt School, although his own work reads a lot more like Roemer than >Adorno. I wouldn't rather read Althusser or the Frankfurters. Not true at all. I just found that I learned more from Althusser's basic works than say, Cohen's, because the concept of "overdetermination" says more about empirical history than does an Oscar Lange-type histomat dressed up in analytical philosophy. Presenting a rigorous presentation of a poor theory is useless, no? Roemer, on the other hand, presents a generalization of Henry George and then says he can say something about capitalism, Marx, and exploitation. He presents an extremely rigorous model of a fallacious theory. (BTW, Dymski's and my article debunking Roemer's theory of exploitation may read like Roemer, but that's because we were playing the latter's game.) But logic -- rigor -- doesn't rule the world. Contrary to Hegel, the real ain't rational. (The point of social science, to my mind, is not to reproduce _all_ of empirical reality as an ideal model in our minds, but to reproduce as much as possible in a model -- and to understand the _limits_ of models in understanding the world and the role of inductive reasoning. There will _always_ be an unpredictable element, a wild card in the deck.) >I haven't the patience for most of the F-School and I think Althusser is a >fraud, fulkl of talk of rigor when he wouldn't know a rigorous argument if >it bit him on the ass. Althusser is worthwhile in historical context -- because he broke with the formalistic technical determinism of the French CP by adding some important nuances which allowed some Marxian social scientists to get some insight in empirical research (e.g., the articulation of modes of production) that was excluded by the official Marxism of that time and place. It's unfortunate that the Althusserians stopped there and didn't develop a dynamic and more humanistic vision. But Cohen simply develops an even more formalistic version of the French CP's official Marxism, one that seems particularly useless for understanding the empirical world. It's a step backward. This is partly because he seems to want to avoid learn
Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution
At 12:17 AM 6/28/00 +1000, you wrote: >That leaves what I take to be the true dialectician, who is never wrong, >because s/he's always content with the useless (by natural scientific >standards of proof and prediction). a dialectician might never be wrong in terms of abstract theory, but when that theory is stated as a more concrete model, it could be empirically or logically wrong. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Eugene Coyle wrote: > Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism? Gene, There are 2 kinds of people: those who understand the problem and those who are part of it. Bartlett understands the problem. If you read what he says, he says inter alia that 'there is no population problem: there is an AMERICAN population problem because Americans use 30x as much energy as everybody else'. Bartlett understands that the problem is capitalism, even if he might have a difficulty which only Doyle Saylor could anaylse, in actually pronouncing the word 'capitalism'. Daydreamers like Dennis Redmond and Doug Henwood are having amiably inane conversations about 'the next great upswing', while the planet is burning around them. Mine Doyran is twitching her bottom on a library stool somewhere because someone mentioned the word population. I used to have the same argument with the beloved Yoshie who once called me a racist because I wrote about 'surplus population', until I pointed out that the coinage was Marx's; I guess she must of went away and read Marx because now she too talks about 'surplus population'. Doug is a political voyeur, who reported on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly 'text' etc, instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show commitment and start ORGANISING. Michael Perelman, whose book Invention of Capitalism I'm just serialising on the CrashList, so let no-one say I don't like him, I do, I really do, nonetheless has arguments about energy which go like this: what is a waterfall? What is differential rent? What is absolute rent? Gimme a break, Michael. Get with the programme, all of you. Get with the programme. Mark Jones
RE: Re: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Rod Hay wrote: > > population growth has > stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world. > > On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology? > For practical > purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite. Rod, this only shows that you don't understand the problem. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post. Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion off this list. On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene. Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with the population of the rich. > > > Eugene Coyle wrote: > > Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism? > > Gene, > > There are 2 kinds of people: those who understand the problem and those who > are part of it. Bartlett understands the problem. If you read what he says, > he says inter alia that 'there is no population problem: there is an > AMERICAN population problem because Americans use 30x as much energy as > everybody else'. Bartlett understands that the problem is capitalism, even > if he might have a difficulty which only Doyle Saylor could anaylse, in > actually pronouncing the word 'capitalism'. > > Daydreamers like Dennis Redmond and Doug Henwood are having amiably inane > conversations about 'the next great upswing', while the planet is burning > around them. Mine Doyran is twitching her bottom on a library stool > somewhere because someone mentioned the word population. I used to have the > same argument with the beloved Yoshie who once called me a racist because I > wrote about 'surplus population', until I pointed out that the coinage was > Marx's; I guess she must of went away and read Marx because now she too > talks about 'surplus population'. Doug is a political voyeur, who reported > on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on > Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly 'text' etc, > instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show commitment and start > ORGANISING. Michael Perelman, whose book Invention of Capitalism I'm just > serialising on the CrashList, so let no-one say I don't like him, I do, I > really do, nonetheless has arguments about energy which go like this: what > is a waterfall? What is differential rent? What is absolute rent? Gimme a > break, Michael. > > Get with the programme, all of you. Get with the programme. > > Mark Jones > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: energy crises
My old undergraduate economics advisor, William Nordhaus, presented a model back in the early 1970s (when I knew him) in which the growth of the economy encouraged high prices of the main resources used as energy sources, which then induced the search for new supplies, for new energy sources, and for new technology. This allowed the capitalist system (my words, not his) to recover from the energy crisis and to begin growing again, eventually to run into a new era of high energy costs. This theory -- which might allow for the government to help with the process of adaptation to high energy prices -- does not result in the destruction of the world by capitalist growth. I'm not an expert on this subject at all, but what's wrong with the Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time -- and that the capitalists might deal with the problem by cutting wages instead of following the Nordhaus path. In the US at least, the non-Nordhaus path was an important part of the political economy of the 1970s and 1980s, helping to explain the fall and/or stagnation of wages relative to labor productivity. But beyond that (if people agree with this point), what's wrong with the Nordhaus theory? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
>Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post. >Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion >off this list. > >On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene. >Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical >person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with >the population of the rich. > Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich...
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Population growth may be a problem in one place but not in another. Hereabouts the problem is not population growth but population decline. Where 60 years ago there was a large family on every quarter section or so now there is a small family every 2 or 3 sections. Hog density is increasing though. Cheers, Ken Hanly Rod Hay wrote: > Assumptions? Exponential growth? > > On population. For most of human history populations have fairly stable. There > have been two periods of very rapid growth. The neolithic revolution and the > industrial revolution. In the rich industrial countries, population growth has > stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world. > > On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology? For practical > purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite. > > The real ecological problem is what to do with our wastes. > > Rod > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population > > growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy > > consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential > > population growth means exponential energy consumption. > > > > Paul Phillips, > > Economics, > > University of Manitoba > > > > Population-growth > > > is a red-herring issue; > > > > > Mark Jones > > > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 26 June 2000 22:55 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: [PEN-L:20716] RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th > > > > century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd) > > > > > -- > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archive > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ > 52 Eby Street South > Kitchener, Ontario > N2G 3L1 > Canada
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 If the national economy continues to moderate its growth rate over the rest of this year, employers could see some relief from chronic labor shortages dominating virtually each region, say private and government analysts across the country who were interviewed in mid-June for the Bureau of National Affairs' annual Regional Outlook. But the projected slowdown may not ease pay pressure in the short run. Businessmen across the country have met the challenges of hiring and keeping workers in the tightest labor market in at least 30 years by turning to creative hiring approaches and a variety of nontraditional pay schemes. Immigrants have been a major group that has expanded labor pools in many regions, along with people moving from welfare to work and people returning to the labor force to take advantage of a prosperous economy. ... (Daily Labor Report, Special Report). The Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas says its latest survey shows that 62 percent of 200 human resource executives polled view telecommuting as a benefit to help retain employees. Ten percent said the labor crisis is so severe that their companies are at risk of turning away business. Less than 5 percent of those polled said the situation had improved from a year ago. The Challenger poll indicated that finding and keeping skilled workers was by far the biggest employer concern, which was cited by 53 percent of those surveyed as the greatest challenge that they will face in the second half of 2000. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-12). The key driver of costs at the top U.S. colleges, Cornell University professor Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who is both an economist and a former vice president of Cornell University, concludes, based on research and personal experience, is the desire of school administrators to make their institutions "the very best they can be in every area of their activities." ... Ehrenberg points out that the cost of higher education generally has grown at a rate 2 to 3 percentage points above the cost of living for most of this century. That mattered little when only a handful of Americans went to college, and, in the years following World War II, when college attendance soared, household income was rising at a similar rate. The change came in 1980 when household income began falling behind the cost of living while college costs continued to run ahead of it. That pattern is what has made higher education a major stress factor in the economic lives of middle-class American families today. To a certain extent, the steady rise in education costs is understandable. Unlike manufacturing, electronics, and other areas of the economy, education is difficult to automate, and technology offers limited opportunities to make teachers more efficient. Thus, many of the efficiencies that have made some goods and services cheaper over the years are less available in education. ... The Washington Post article (June 25, page H1) is illustrated with a graph that shows that, since 1983, the cost of tuition, room, board, and fees at Harvard has far outstripped the rise in the CPI. ... Struggling for summer help, resorts turn to foreigners, says The Washington Post (June 25, page C1). ... Beach resorts, theme parks, state parks, summer camps, and other businesses throughout the nation are struggling to fill summer jobs and are eagerly recruiting and hiring thousands of visiting foreign students. They are turning to a growing array of agencies to help them hire and are sending their own recruiters abroad. They offer travel subsidies and cut-rate housing. In some cases, they are even hiring over the Internet without face-to-face interviews. ... Besides their willingness to take jobs that may pay little more than the minimum wage, foreign students offer something many U.S. workers can't. They usually are available to work past Labor Day, still a prime moneymaking time for seasonal businesses that generate most of their income from late May to early September. ... Automakers say that despite recent deep discounts, auto sales have not picked up in June from the relatively subdued pace of May, providing evidence to the Federal Reserve that recent interest-rate increases may be slowing the American economy. Auto executives and dealers say sales of luxury cars and luxury sport utility vehicles remain extremely strong. But the mass market for more affordable cars, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickup trucks has softened as middle-class families have become leery of borrowing money at ever steeper rates. ... (New York Times, page B2). application/ms-tnef
Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energyin the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mark Jones wrote: >Doug is a political voyeur, who reported >on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on >Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly 'text' etc, >instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show commitment and start >ORGANISING. I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a political group, and far much less a revolution. Besides, I'm not anywhere as sure as you are of how to organize people and for what end. Uncertainty and skepticism are generally not good character traits in organizers. Doug
Re: "We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as inthe1,000 previous years" (fwd)
Paul Phillips asked, > Why is population growth a non-issue? Exponential population > growth is no more sustainable than exponential energy > consumption if only because, in the long run, exponential > population growth means exponential energy consumption. The answer lies in misleading pronoun "we". Most of the population hasn't been consuming most of the energy, only a small privileged segment. What has been driving the increase in consumption has been the relentless imperative to valorize capital, not human needs. Tom Walker
Re: Re: energy crises
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: RE:RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000previousyears" (fwd)
>Mark Jones wrote: > Mine, >> Of course Bartlett is not a Marxist. That only adds weight to his central >> conclusion, which is about thew terminally unsustainable nature of >> capitalist crisis and not about population growth (don't get sidetracked >> into wasting time on his *opinions* about that; it's his *arguments* about >> exponential growth that need to addressed). > Mark, I was not arguing that Bartlett was a Marxist. Obviously, he is not. Given that Bartlett makes _population growth_ central to his analysis of _exponential growth_ and _unsustainability of capitalism_, how can I *not* talk about his opinions about _exponential growth_ without at the same time talking about his opinions about _population_? I don't logically see why it is a waste of time to point out the political ramifications of Bartlett's population fanaticism. B is openly stating in his article that "population growth must drop to zero" if we are to have a sustainable economic system. Does he say this or not? since he makes himself quite clear about what he defends. No misreading here. As Eugene Coyle rigthly pointed out a while ago, and I tend to agree with this, Bartlett's problem is not _really_ with the unsustainability of capitalism. On the contarary, he thinks capitalism can be made more sustainable if we are to control population and immigration. His logic is the other way around, not against capitalism. Energy crisis, which is what B means by unsustainability, does *not* come from population growth. Population is a *highly* political issue and it does not explain in and off itself why energy crisis happens in the first place. There would have been enough natural resources for us to use sustainabily if we had not happened to have capitalism. I don't want a system, like Bartlett's or eco-centric radicals', where people are constantly posed againist nature, bearing the burden of energy imbalances. I want a system where we live in harmony with nature in some reasonable sense. Capitalism burns up the earth, and in order to correct its human and environmental destruction, it finds the solution in the elimination of people (Social Darwinism), so it creates a strawman of over-population (indians, chinese, africans, etc..) to achieve its goals, one of them being the suppression of wages. Evidently, Bartlett subscribes to this Social Darwinist world view in his final statements about why immigration should be controlled in the US. > > BTW 20% of US electricity is generated by nuclear. > > well, my response was a response to Bartlett's statement that since 1970s "nuclear powers plants have banned in the US". (quote). merci, Mine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be helped if the very poor became better off -- so they did not have to poach or to destroy hillsides to survive. How many poor Haitian peasants do you think will become wealthy next year? Brad De Long wrote: > >Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post. > >Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion > >off this list. > > > >On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene. > >Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical > >person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with > >the population of the rich. > > > > Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) > the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: energy crises
At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote: >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" >technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he should have taken externalities into account. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Population, racism and capitalism (no subject) (fwd)
>From a Marxist piont of view, Steven Rosenthal comrade responds to defenders of over-population thesis, one them being, I may include, _Bartlett._.. Mine - >I agree with most of what Andy and Mine have said during the debate about >population. The problems of the world today are due to capitalism, not >to >overpopulation. >During the past week, the New York Times ran several stories that >substantiate this point. First, U.S. president Clinton has been unable to get European government leaders to agree with any of the military or economic proposals he brought with him on his current trip. The Europeans want the U.S. to discontinue its $5 billion a year tax subsidy to exporting US corporations. The Europeans don't want the U.S. to break the anti-missile treaty by embarking on a missile shield for protection against "rogue states." The U.S. wants Europeans (especially Germany) to increase military spending but only within a NATO framework led by the U.S., while Europeans want to take steps toward building a more independent military force. >These developments illustrate the continued development of inter-imperialist rivalry. >Second, the World Bank released a report acknowledging the immense decline in living standards in sub-Saharan Africa during the last decades of the 20th century. They noted that, even if some progress is made in checking the AIDS epidemic in Africa, which accounts for some 70% of all AIDS cases worldwide, the epidemic will reduce life expectancy by 20 years. The World Bank acknowledged that its policies and those of the IMF have contributed to some extent to the worsening conditions. >Nothing more profoundly illustrates the devastating effect of racism in the world capitalist system. Imperialist exploitation of Africa, with the collusion of local capitalist elites in African countries, is destroying more lives in Africa today than during the height of the slave trade. >A note of clarification here: I'm not suggesting that the AIDS virus was created by imperialists to inflict genocide on Africans. It is possible that the AIDS virus crossed over into the human population during imperialist experimental programs in sub-Saharan Africa during the early or middle part of the 20th century. What is more important, however, is that the epidemic has been shaped by contemporary imperialism and capitalism in Africa. Migrant labor, prostitution and sex slavery, wars and the creation of large populations of refugees, the decline of already small health budgets at the insistence of IMF structural adjustment plans--these are factors that have concentrated the epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. >Third, UNICEF reported in "Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls" that up to half of the female population of the world comes under attack at some point in their lives from men. The report estimated that there are more females than males infected with AIDS in Africa. >What connects these three developments? >First, global capitalism is the most racist and sexist system the world has ever known. Despite all the hype about the efforts capitalist countries have made during the past century to reduce racism and sexism and to end colonialism, capitalism is worse than ever today. This is proof that the system cannot be reformed, which means that its central problems cannot be ameliorated. >Second, as inter-imperialist rivalry sharpens--as illustrated by the first point--imperialists are driven to intensify racist and sexist super-exploitation of the working class. This deepening crisis demands the growth of revolutionary organization of the working class as the only solution. >Third, leading biological determinists--including many proponents of the overpopulation thesis--have promoted the ideological argument that male domination of women, racism, nationalism, and wars are naturally evolved genetic traits of human nature. This ideology represents an attempt to portray inter-imperialist conflict, racism, and sexism as natural, rather than as part of capitalism in crisis and decay. >Steve Rosenthal -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Crappy Organizers
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:42PM >>> Doug says: >I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a >crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a >political group, and far much less a revolution. I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all of us who post on left e-lists. :) CB: Excuse the immodesty, but we just organized the hell out of the BRC Organizing Conference in Detroit.
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE:RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000previousyears" (fwd)
>Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) >the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich... do you know that african american women are sterilized at a significantly higher rate than white women? (according to our sociologist friend, Andy Austin, 3-4 times) doesn't it also bother you that the US elite (particulary the new right) celebrate the decline in black fertility rates? What bothers you actually? Mine
Re: Crappy Organizers
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 03:32PM >>> Hi Charles: > > >CB: Excuse the immodesty, but we just organized the hell out of the >BRC Organizing Conference in Detroit. Congratulations! A great job! ___ CB: Thanks, Yoshie. Seems to me you had a hand in the OSU strike support.
:"We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Yes, and I thought it was the rich get richer and the poor get children. CB >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:44PM >>> How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be helped if the very poor became better off -- so they did not have to poach or to destroy hillsides to survive. How many poor Haitian peasants do you think will become wealthy next year? Brad De Long wrote: > >Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post. > >Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion > >off this list. > > > >On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene. > >Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical > >person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with > >the population of the rich. > > > > Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) > the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
I wasn't honestly aware of any ad hominems, you know I hate that sort of thing, but if you say so, then it is so, and I'm already falling on my sword, Maximus Michaelimus. As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely, and obviously misunderstands the issue too. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20741] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much > energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd) > > > Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post. > Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion > off this list. > > On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene. > Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical > person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with > the population of the rich. > > > > > > > Eugene Coyle wrote: > > > Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism? > > > > Gene, > > > > There are 2 kinds of people: those who understand the problem > and those who > > are part of it. Bartlett understands the problem. If you read > what he says, > > he says inter alia that 'there is no population problem: there is an > > AMERICAN population problem because Americans use 30x as much energy as > > everybody else'. Bartlett understands that the problem is > capitalism, even > > if he might have a difficulty which only Doyle Saylor could anaylse, in > > actually pronouncing the word 'capitalism'. > > > > Daydreamers like Dennis Redmond and Doug Henwood are having > amiably inane > > conversations about 'the next great upswing', while the planet > is burning > > around them. Mine Doyran is twitching her bottom on a library stool > > somewhere because someone mentioned the word population. I used > to have the > > same argument with the beloved Yoshie who once called me a > racist because I > > wrote about 'surplus population', until I pointed out that the > coinage was > > Marx's; I guess she must of went away and read Marx because now she too > > talks about 'surplus population'. Doug is a political voyeur, > who reported > > on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on > > Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly > 'text' etc, > > instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show > commitment and start > > ORGANISING. Michael Perelman, whose book Invention of > Capitalism I'm just > > serialising on the CrashList, so let no-one say I don't like > him, I do, I > > really do, nonetheless has arguments about energy which go like > this: what > > is a waterfall? What is differential rent? What is absolute > rent? Gimme a > > break, Michael. > > > > Get with the programme, all of you. Get with the programme. > > > > Mark Jones > > > > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList Michaelus Perelmanus wrote: > > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > helped if the very > poor became better off -- Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read all day, no, all week. Marcus Minimus
RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) Mark
RE: Re: energy crises
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 04:30PM >>> Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) ))) CB: Solar ?
Re: RE: Re: RE:RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000previousyears" (fwd)
Yes, Mark, I am "twitching" my ass on a "library stool" because some magical person mentioned that population growth rate "must drop to zero" and made himself clear that the _US government_ should adjust its population accordingly. Yes, I am still twitching my ass because the same magical person warned me that I should be against population fanatics, Social Darwinists and hard-nosed empiricists who deliberately present ideology as science and facts No, Bartlett did "not" indeed mention "anything" about population!!! I was just twitching my ass! Frankly, I agree with you on many issues, Mark, particulary with your deep awarenesss of the Soviet history and Leninism. but, somehow, we disagree on the fundamentals about socio-biology, gender, and race issues. why? I think Marxism would benefit a lot if we were to incorporate and discuss these topics more seriously than we regulary do. What I am saying is in agreement with Marx. You will get angry but I don't particulary see why you are so defensive of Bartlett at this point. Mine > > Daydreamers like Dennis Redmond and Doug Henwood are having amiably inane > conversations about 'the next great upswing', while the planet is burning > around them. Mine Doyran is twitching her bottom on a library stool > somewhere because someone mentioned the word population. I used to have the > same argument with the beloved Yoshie who once called me a racist because I > wrote about 'surplus population', until I pointed out that the coinage was > Marx's; I guess she must of went away and read Marx because now she too > talks about 'surplus population'. Doug is a political voyeur, who reported > on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on > Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly 'text' etc, > instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show commitment and start > ORGANISING. Michael Perelman, whose book Invention of Capitalism I'm just > serialising on the CrashList, so let no-one say I don't like him, I do, I > really do, nonetheless has arguments about energy which go like this: what > is a waterfall? What is differential rent? What is absolute rent? Gimme a > break, Michael. > > Get with the programme, all of you. Get with the programme. > > Mark Jones > >
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Mark Jones wrote: >Jim Devine wrote: >>what's wrong with the >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be around to collect. Doug
RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote: >what's wrong with the > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, because they are not alternatives) Mark We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that occurs one million years hence? mbs
Re: My looniness
Michael Perelman wrote: >extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. But nothing compared to us car-driving, air-conditioned people. You sound like the World Bank here, blaming deforestation on poor indigenes rather than rapacious corporate loggers. Do you really mean this? Doug
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>Jim Devine wrote: > >what's wrong with the > > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) why should I believe you? why not solar? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: energy crises
I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy problem facing us today, which is global warming, not high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives to fossil fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as we know it) are truly fucked. You all might want to take a look at the latest reports on climate change. Without a 70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the next twenty (yes 20) years, we are on course to raise the planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the course of the next century. The consequences of this are unimaginable. Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this context, would be a good thing. Ellen Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Jim Devine wrote: >>what's wrong with the >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are >the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) > >))) > >CB: Solar ? >
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, >because they are not alternatives) Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be around to collect. Doug No problem. Start a fund with one penny. In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest, it will compound to $7.8161E+209. Longer is more than my spreadsheet can handle. mbs
Re: "We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000
Rod writes: >Gasoline is still the cheapest liquid you can buy. What is it in the US, about $2.00 a gallon? Try to buy any other liquid for the same price.< You're right. The graphs that indicate the real price of gasoline (nominal price/consumer price index in the US) indicate that prices are only high relative to a couple of years ago. The general trend in the real price since the 1970s has been _downward_. The real price in 1998 was as low as its been in the whole series since the series started in 1958. Averaging over 6-year periods, the ratio of energy prices in the CPI to the over-all CPI looks as follows, with 1982-4 = 100: 1958-63 74.9 1964-69 70.9 1970-75 69.7 1976-81 90.6 1982-87 92.2 1988-93 75.1 1994-99 67.7 If there's a trend, it's downward, though it's possible that the recent uptick could turn into trend in the future. But I think a lot of the complaint about higher gas prices is simply the whining of spoiled drivers. (Hey, I drive a gas-guzzler! But I got it for free.) And Ellen is right that prices in the US are clearly _too low_ (and that the energy crisis shrinks in importance compared to the environmental crisis). The Europeans have a better policy, since high gas prices discourage gasoline use and thus global warming. Probably the petrol taxes over there should be raised even further Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: Re: RE:RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000previousyears" (fwd)
Mark Jones wrote: > Rod Hay wrote: > > > > population growth has > > stabilized. Why should it not in other areas of the world. > > > > On energy. Why do we have to assume a static energy technology? > > For practical > > purposes, the amount of energy available is infinite. > > Rod, this only shows that you don't understand the problem. Mark, let me try to get at what *I* think is the problem (and think you don't recognize). Let us say that you are completely correct in your arguments re global warming and energy depletion. Since I am granting you (and Lou) this premise, it is sheer obfustication to respond to the present post with any further arguments on global warming or energy depletion. Since you and Lou have a terribly difficult time in grasping this simple point, let me give an analogy. Consider the following conversation, and instead of using X and Y I shall use actual names, Mark and Carrol. Mark: The house is burning down. Carrol: Yes -- should we call the fire department or should we get out first? Mark: You idiot. Didn't you hear me, the house is burning down. Carrol. Yes. And it's blocked us off from the stairwell. We'd better see which window is safest to jump out of. Mark: My God! You fucking daydreamer! Don't you realize it, THE HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN. Carrol. Yes, I know. And we're all going to burn up. How should we go about saving ourselves? Mark: I give up. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE HOUSE IS BURNING. Carrol: Yes, it sure is. And if we can't find a way out, we're going to burn to death. Oh, and incidentally, those thumps on the door are from those thugs who have been trying to kill us for the last week. If the door breaks before we get out of here, the fire won't have a chance to get us, we'll be dead. Do you know how to load this rifle? Mark: You're just a hopeless pollyanna. Carrol: How do we turn on this fire extinguisher? Mark: Didn't you hear me. The house is burning down. * I assume that the trends Mark focuses on can only be brought under control it a world in which socialist societies (societies in which the working class rules) dominate. But I also assume that even if Mark (and I guess also Ellen) is wrong, the continued existence of capitalism is a serious threat to human existence (as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out nearly a century ago). In other words, on a number of different grounds I agree with Mark that the house is burning. But the house has always been burning. On this Marx and Engels were pretty clear in their very earliest works. And the *real* problem remains exactly the same as it has always been: how to recruit and energize the fire brigades to put out the fire of capitalism. In an earlier round on this issue on the marxism list, Lou finally deigned to give some recognition to my pounding away on the political point -- but I think his response was simply ridiculous: he claimed that before anything could be done an ideological struggle had to be wage within marxism to bring marxists to recognize that the house was burning. Pish. I really can't take Mark and Lou (or Ellen) very seriously on this issue until they can *begin* at least to translate it into political theory. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: energy crises
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- "the market will solve the problem"? Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" > technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chico, CA 95929 > 530-898-5321 > fax 530-898-5901
Crappy Organizers (was Re: "We used 10 times as much energy inthe 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd))
Doug says: >I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a >crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a >political group, and far much less a revolution. I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all of us who post on left e-lists. :) Yoshie
Re: Crappy Organizers
Hi Charles: > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 02:42PM >>> >Doug says: > > >I think I'm not bad as a reporter and an analyst. I know I'm a > >crappy organizer. I can't even organize my own life, much less a > >political group, and far much less a revolution. > >I suspect that the same holds true for (nearly?) all of us who post >on left e-lists. :) > > > >CB: Excuse the immodesty, but we just organized the hell out of the >BRC Organizing Conference in Detroit. Congratulations! A great job! Generally (with the exception of you and Michael Perelman), though, time spent carping & cavilling on e-lists (unless we are just posting forwards, press releases, etc.) are time not spent on organizing (or on anything else for that matter). So it is no wonder Brad doesn't get invited to become a member of the Central Committee. :) Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote: >What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- >"the market will solve the problem"? it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian -- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then again, it's been 25 years since I read the paper. Even if it is straight out of the text, we can't reject his argument out of hand. We have to point to the theory's flaws, as several have. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
Mark Jones wrote: > > > As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely, and obviously > misunderstands the issue too. > I understand Barlett very well. I've heard him speak. The seminars or workshops, or whatever they are, are funded and used to incite racism among the well-off folks who see the same environmental problem that Mark does. Bartlett's job, which he embraces with gusto, is to eductate these concerned white rich folks as to the solution -- and his solution is cutting population growth in part the world with darker-skinned inhabitants and raising fences around the US to keep out immigrants. Cut population and go on despoiling the world with consuming out of your high incomes. I've gone to other gatherings of the same sort -- (where Barlett wasn't a speaker) and I must say the hatred of "the other" that pours out of the audience as speakers talk about immigration is physically frightening. At one of them I rushed to get my wife out of the event before we were physically assaulted. Pure hate fed by pure fear -- overlain with an understanding that the environment is in trouble. The population movement is handsomely funded by the same folks who were behind sterilization and eugenics in the thirties. Pretty nasty people. The Pioneer Fund, for one. They are aggressively moving in on environmental groups. There is a relatively new enviro group called "The New American Dream" with a focus on simple living and cutting consumption. the population nuts have moved in at the top and are re-focusing the members/audience on population rather than consumption, the issue which attratracted them in the first place.. Gene Coyle
Re: "We used 10 times as much energy in the 20thcentury as in the 1,000
>There is no shortage of energy! > >Nor of any other resource. > >The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our >garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is >inhospitable for human life. > >Rod I agree that waste management is an urgent problem, but the reason why there is "no shortage of energy nor of any other resources" is that the market rations their use. Econ 101 says that any shortage can be cured by an appropriately higher price, so it seems there is no point in celebrating an absence of shortage. The poor in poor countries have no access to electricity, clean water, reliable transportation, household appliances, and other goods that consume oil and other resources in their production, because they can't afford them. If everyone in the world were to live according to the standards set by rich nations, wouldn't there be a problem (though capitalism does prevent this particular problem from ever arising, since the majority are doomed to poverty)? Yoshie
Reply to Carrol Cox
>In an earlier round on this issue on the marxism list, Lou finally >deigned >to give some recognition to my pounding away on the political point -- >but I think his response was simply ridiculous: he claimed that before >anything could be done an ideological struggle had to be wage within >marxism to bring marxists to recognize that the house was burning. >Carrol Actually, this is what I wrote in reply, but apparently it didn't register on you. >Neither you nor Lou has made the tiniest gesture towards working out >how this makes the least practical difference in the work of the socialist >movement. You simply keep repeating that things are horrible, with >which I am in complete agreement. Over on pen-l Lou is making a lot >of fuss about how Marx wasn't merely a theorist but that everything >he wrote was directly linked to the exigencies of building a socialist >movement. But when I say that should be of concern to marxist >ecologists today, Lou has recourse to the academic marxist's position >that curiosity about the truth is a good thing. > >Carrol Evidently you weren't paying close attention to what I was saying. I stated that after the completion of Capital, Marx turned his attention to immediate problems in the class struggle. He was absorbed with party-building problems, how to interpret phenomena like Bonapartism, Russian populism and chattel slavery, etc. But Volume 3 of Capital addressed important theoretical issues involving the use of land, which was related to the most pressing ecological crisis of the 19th century: soil fertility. Even after this theoretical analysis was completed, Marx never proposed that the revolutionary movement campaign around the question of restoring soil fertility by eliminating the breach between town and country. This remained a "maximal" demand of the Communist Manifesto. His main intention was to state that only communism could resolve this crisis. On the level of day-to-day struggles, Marx was much more concerned with issues such as how to overthrow the landed gentry, establish the right to vote for the working class so it could advance its own interests, etc. The fact that he was preoccupied with the latter does not mean that he neglected the former issues. The problem today is that we have not carried out the kind of work that Marx did in V. 3 for the ecological crisis of today. Within Marxism, there are four schools of thought that are contending with each other: 1. James O'Connor's "second contradiction" thesis: This maintains that the capital accumulation process will continue to undermine its ability to sustain itself. Breakdowns in the environmental infrastructure (water, sanitation, food) will eventually undermine capitalism's ability to create commodities at the point of production, which is the realm of the "primary contradiction" between wage-labor and capital. 2. David Harvey's "brown Marxism": This has been defended here by Jose and those comrades who have been influenced by Frank Furedi. With Harvey, you get a "workerist" attack on issues such as deforestation, etc. He argues that the disappearance of the rainforest doesn't matter much to people living in the ghetto, so the left should focus on things like exposure to pesticides by farmworkers, etc. 3. Frankfurt School: This includes a number of thinkers who argue that Marx never really considered ecological questions and that this is the cause of environmental ruin in the former Soviet Union. They stress the need for a return to "spiritual" values and share many of the beliefs of the deep ecologists. Ted Benton, editor of "The Greening of Marxism", is the most prominent spokesman for this current. He felt the need particularly to attack the "Promethean" aspect of Marxism on these questions. 4. Classical Marxism: This is a fairly recent trend and owes much to Paul Burkett, author of "Marx and Nature" and John Bellamy Foster whose "Marx's Ecology" attempts to restore the materialist component of Marx's thought. Mark and I are obviously part of this trend, but have our own particular areas of interest. Mark has been concentrating on the energy and global warming questions, while my attention has been focused on ecology and indigenous peoples. In any case, until Marxism has debated out and resolved these questions, it will not be able to maximize its influence on the intelligentsia. I want to stress the importance, by the way, of who our target audience is. It is not the working-class at this point. It is a rather broad milieu of scientists and students in various fields who are deeply distressed by the state of the world. We are trying to win them to Marxism. Unless they understand that the ecological crisis is rooted in the capitalist system, they will continue to encounter frustration. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Malthus revisited
Mark Jones' alleged raising of the overpopulation question leads us once again into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus. I would refer PEN-L'ers to Michael Perelman's "Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor and Finance", specifically chapter two on "Marx, Malthus, and the Concept of Natural Resource Scarcity". It is one of the best things I have ever read on the subject. Michael states that Marx avoided a direct confrontation with Malthusianism itself. The reason for this was German socialists, under Lasalle's initiative, had incorporated Malthus's doctrines into their program through their notion of the "Iron Law of Wages." Marx decided that he had enough on his table in explaining the labor theory of value without taking Malthus head-on, besides wanting to avoid factional warfare with the German party. This has caused a serious misinterpretation of Marx's views today, because it would lead to the conclusion that Marx did not think that the question of natural resources and their scarcity had any importance. It would fortify the arguments of "deep ecologists" and "green anarchists" who view Marx and Engels as treating nature as nothing but a huge faucet and drain. Ore, water, crops, etc. come out of the faucet in unlimited supply; labor turns them into commodities; and the waste products go down the drain. This interpretation does not do justice to Marx. Marx treats the question of overpopulation itself as an function of capital's need to deploy labor in the social relations surrounding production. A "relative surplus of population" or "industrial reserve army" comes into existence when traditional means of production are abolished, such as village-based, communal agriculture. As Perelman comments: "The apparent 'overpopulation' that then arises is relative, not to natural conditions or food supply, but to the needs of capital accumulation; that is, capital requires a reserve army of labor power on which it can draw quickly and easily, one that holds the pretensions of the working class in check. Scarcity in this context is scarcity of employment owing to the concentration of the means of production under the control of a small class of capitalists operating according to the logic of profit and competition." (Perelman, p. 31) Besides providing a theoretical approach to the question, Marx also dealt with the historical example of Ireland, which Malthusians cited as a classic example of overpopulation. Marx took another tack entirely. He argued that the massive exodus of people following the potato famine did not improve the standard of living in Ireland. It mirrored a decline that began before 1846, the year of the famine. The depopulation of Ireland was engineered by an English and Irish landlord class that transformed the island from a wheat-producing nation, protected from foreign competition by the corn laws, into a huge pasture for wool-producing sheep. Scarcity of natural resources, like population, could not be understood on its own terms. It arises as a consequence of historically determined social relations. His understanding of scarcity comes into the sharpest focus when discussing agriculture. At first Marx believed that agriculture's problems were the heritage of pre-capitalist formations. The bourgeois revolution would fix everything. In the Communist Manifesto, he includes the "application of chemistry to industry and agriculture" as among the greatest accomplishments of capitalism. In a letter to Engels from this period, Marx states that capitalist agriculture breakthroughs "would put an end to Malthus' theory of the deterioration not only of the 'hands' [i.e., people] but also of the land." The more he studied agriculture under capitalism, the more pessimistic Marx became of these prospects. This change occurred between 1861 and 1863 when he was writing "Theories of Surplus Value," a work which while still promoting the view that capitalist agriculture might even progress at a faster rate than industry, contains a new "greenish" view that is less optimistic: "The moral history...concerning agriculture...is that the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture, or that a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system (although the latter promotes technical improvements in agriculture), and needs either the hand of the small farmer living by his own labor or the control of associated producers." Marx came to these views not because he became convinced of an early version of the Gaia principle, but because he had been studying agronomy and organic chemistry in some detail. He believed that agricultural chemistry was more important than all of the economists "put together." His agricultural research led him to the conclusion in 1868 that capitalist agriculture "leaves deserts behind it." His section on "Large Scale Industry and Agriculture" in volume one of Capital is virtually a red-green manifesto: "Capitalist production, by collecti
Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
At 06:31 27/06/00 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings Economists, > Chris Burfurd asks what web page I got my quotes from. I would like to >add another correction also. The book I quoted from is called "Sex Between >Men", not just the subject matter. A history of male fucking since WWII. > >The web site is, >http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS/as_chronicles.html > >These are Jim Devine's accounts mainly of the meaning of his life experience >in a particular narrow range of disability. However, I want to emphasize >again that this kind of disability shows us not to assume that feeling is >central to human social systems. Human feeling is important in terms of the >stickiness of human cohesion, but that as Jim points out in his accounts, >kinds of labor processes are enhanced by a relative lack of understanding. >And this getting away from able bodied thinking is very important in the >Marxist sense of seeing the dialectical whole of economic systems. >thanks, >Doyle Saylor These essays are so courageously, and at times, ruthlessly personal, and the span of connections so great that it is hard to know whether a comment is relevant or merely tangential. Still on balance it seems better to make some response even if it is off key. Jim's 5 year old essay on Aspergers Syndrome is a very personal examination. The biggest qualification that could be made to it, I think, is the need for a social context. What many members of the intelligentsia struggle over internally are the internalised experiences of the processes of selection that make them members of the intelligentsia. It is a vital layer of modern capitalist society, and riddled with social contradictions. Not all of them are the fault of the intellectuals. A degree of obsessionality is both a handicap and also a strength in certain areas. A lot of what Jim describes is no more than that. IMHO. It is clearly part of a self-regulatory system that is alive and well from what he described here. In classical marxist theory the intelligentsia is not a separate class because it does not have a separate relationship to the means of production, but it is an extremely important layer of society, which mostly supports the ideas and practice of the ruling class, but may face towards the mass of the working people. On their own, members of the intelligentsia may appear almost handicapped. In the wider social context they are now indispensible. Perhaps this is part of what Doyle means when he says >getting away from able bodied thinking is very important in the >Marxist sense of seeing the dialectical whole of economic systems There is a very wide range of sexual communication. Indeed the word "intercourse" has an even wider meaning. It is only in developed capitalist societies that different types of sexual behaviour have been categorised. In any fundamental theoretical sense these categories should break down, just as Jim is right to note the relative and limited nature of diagnostic categories like Asperger's syndrome. An autistic spectrum may be linked to difficulties over a "theory of mind", to being able to discern human beings behind the outside phenomena, an enormously complicated task. In normal psychological interaction we experience each other perhaps at best only as part objects seeing and experiencing only a sub set of features that particularly resonate with our own psychological needs. This is not however all subjective idealism. This is the way human beings interact in actually engaging together to cope with the environment and to reproduce themselves materially. Older traditions of marxism have been seen as very dogmatic. But the Bolshevik emphasis on respect for certain principles and policies has a material relevance in creating a political force that changed the direction of history in 20th century. On balance I think the internet can create a degree of resonance among progressive people across the world, that does not have to be rigid or dogmatic, but network politics is not good at pointing in just one direction. Greater awareness of ourselves as individuals, with all our different concrete limitations may be a necessary part of a conscious process of collective interaction which adds up to a material force capable of changing the world. "Theory becomes a material force when it grips the masses" (Marx - to be dogmatic!). By a process of numerous approximations, perhaps that is beginning again to happen. Chris Burford London
Re: Aimless blather on dialectics, method, history and revolution
>Or is the central question to do with that self-institutionalising >dissenting movement? Human agency - the self-conscious drive to become the >subject of our history, if you like. I have no idea why these movements pop >up when they do - and why they don't when they don't. Neither the >hideousness nor the prosperity of the moment seems decisive, nor the >productive capacity of the base du jour, nor the presence or absence of >large proletariats. Such movements have yet to get very far in their own >lofty terms (an opinion I know not to be shared here), but they have left >their indelible mark on our superstructures, I think. How do you mean self-institutionalising? <...> >Maybe business's 'search for certainty' is going to have to create a system >not a million miles from socialist planning - maybe it's already >unconsciously doing it - maybe more along the lines of, say, a prosaic >Schumpetarian/Galbraithian vision at first - where the tyranny of the market >might be giving way to that of the unaccountable technocrat - but that >would, I think, ultimately be a moment necessitating merely a political >revolution rather than a social one. > >Because just maybe we're already undergoing that social revolution? "Because" -- ? Curious! puzzled, Joanna www.overlookhouse.com
Zimbabwe post election
Interesting to see Patrick Bond tonight in a heavily clipped interview on BBC 2 Newsnight about the Zimbabwe elections. Patrick was suggesting, if I got the point correctly, that Morgan Tsvangirai was boxing Mugabe in by offering some sort of compromise with the implicit risk in the background that if Mugabe imposed a more open dictatorship he would suffer the probable fate of other dictatorial opponents of the world bank. Perhaps I got that wrong. I do not doubt that in terms of formal non-coercive democracy, the MDC's roots in the Zimbabwe congress of trade unions, make it more democratic than the aging ZANU. I hope there is some sort of pluralist negotiation in the new parliament, but I would want to see how the MDC can effectively campaign against the World Bank and neo-liberalism and for land redistribution, rather than merely stand back and let Mugabe take the blame for economic poverty. What is the MDC programme of reconstruction and how does it enhance the economic independence of Zimbabwe rather than make Zimbabwe the dutiful junior partner of the World Bank? Important other areas of Africa will be watching the policy outcome in Zimbabwe, including South Africa and Kenya. I am unimpressed by British government protestations that it wants to help rural poverty in Zimbabwe if this is a cover for redistributive liberalism that does not address the ownership and control of the means of production. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is undeniable that better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. For example, according to a textbook by Agnew and Knox, in 1975 worldwide proven reserves of crude oil were 650 billion barrels. By 1985 they had risen to 765 billion barrels, and by 1995 they rose to 1 trillion barrels. Of course, the geographical distribution of oil reserves is important: reserves in Europe and N. America were lower in 1995 than in 1975. And, as has been mentioned, there are lots of 'externalities' involved, including the nasty sunburn I got last week, apparently partly because there are now more UV rays caused by ozone-depletion. I think Hegel and Marx's distinction between barrier and limit can be useful when thinking about nature and capitalism - very crudely, nature is a barrier; workers and allies are a (potential) limit. Bill
Public Private Partnerships
Here is an interesting article showing the added costs of private-public partnerships Cheers, ken hanly The Globe and Mail Tuesday, June 27, 2000 THE HIDDEN EXPENSES OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS By John Loxley Brian Neysmith's paean to public-private partnerships grossly exaggerates their benefits and leaves some serious misunderstandings about how they work in practice (The Future Is In Partnerships -- May 19). Case studies I have conducted for the Canadian Union of Public Employees reveal quite a different picture. The most common form of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Canada has been one in which the private partner finances, builds and operates a facility, be it a road, bridge, school or office block, and leases it back to government. A legal contract does, in fact, give the private partner access to a "tax base" for the life of the lease. The benefits to government are said to be lower debt and capital spending, thus easing compliance with balanced budget legislation where this exists. In reality, and without exception to my knowledge, the implied cost of borrowing built into the lease is higher than the public sector's own direct cost of borrowing. For the Confederation Bridge in Prince Edward Island, a case quoted favourably by Mr. Neysmith, the additional costs of borrowing have been calculated by the Auditor-General to be in the region of $45-million. The provincial Auditor of New Brunswick concluded that the Evergreen Park School in New Brunswick cost tax payers $900,000 more (on a $14.7-million project) than if a traditional approach had been followed. The Charleswood Bridge in Winnipeg cost taxpayers an extra $1.4-million in present value terms on a contract of $11.6-million. Such projects do not reduce public sector debt as the leases have a present value that is exactly the equivalent to debt, regardless of accounting conventions. They are, at best, an expensive way of "cooking the books," as more government auditors are now revealing. Consultants have complained about the high "hidden" costs of bidding on PPPs, both to the construction industry and the public sector, in terms of preparing and evaluating requests for quotation and requests for proposals. Such costs have been estimated at $1.6-million for the Charleswood Bridge (over 10 per cent of the project cost), with fees to consultants alone being 6.7 times as high as those incurred in a normal design-bid-build project. Mr. Neysmith argues it both ways -- he says PPPs are more cost effective and more efficient, but at the same time he argues that the private sector must be allowed to generate more revenue from assets than would have been necessary if they had remained in public hands. Where the PPP takes the form of a public utility financed by the government handing over the operating budget to the private partner, as is the case with the Hamilton-Wentworth water and waste facility in Ontario, higher private revenues can only take the form of lower amounts spent on operations. This means layoffs of workers, which can lead to reduced levels of service. In Hamilton-Wentworth, apparently, it has meant higher exposure of the public to risks of service disruption and to environmental damage. The private partner has also claimed a portion of savings in costs that have resulted from purely public sector initiatives. There is another common feature of PPPs that ought to concern Canadians; they uniformly lead, for reasons of "competition," to the privatization of information that was previously within the public realm. This inevitably reduces accountability for how public monies are being spent. John Loxley is an economics professor at the University of Manitoba.
RE: Re: Re: energy crises
Bill Burgess wrote: > Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises > > > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is > undeniable that > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil is
a renewable resource' etc and other certifiable nonsense), the fact is that
energy is not infinite, there is no substitute for petroleum, capitalism
depends on petroleum, and when it's gone, it's gone. It's be gone very soon
indeed and some people (jncluding me) think that actually the Hubbert Peak
has already arrived, and oil production worldwide will now decline sharply.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
> >what's wrong with the
> > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
> It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
> What are the
> alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> because they are not alternatives) Mark
>
>
>
> We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that
> occurs one million years hence?
>
> mbs
>
>
RE: My looniness
For once, I agree with Doug, who is right: it took you exaclty five minutes in this debate, to begin YOURSELF to start blaming the (over-breeding?) poor in neocolonial countries. How are the new Nike's BTW? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:46 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20766] My looniness > > > I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was > stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. > 1. The the > rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That > extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. > > > Mark Jones wrote: > > > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > > > helped if the very > > > poor became better off -- > > > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read > all day, no, > > all week. > > > > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chico, CA 95929 > 530-898-5321 > fax 530-898-5901 > >
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim, much as I like you (I do, as a tireless intellectual, of a certain sort) I don't really give a damn whether you believe me (now) or not. You soon will do, in any case. But don't take my word, check it out yourself. PV is not a substitute for oil. There is no substitute for oil. Anyone who says there is is simply deluded. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:53 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20767] Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > > >Jim Devine wrote: > > >what's wrong with the > > > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > > > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. > What are the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > why should I believe you? why not solar? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
At last, some wisdom. Yes, we are fucked. And yes, without linking the future of fossil to to the future of greenhouse, it's impossible to make sense of anything. We "socialists" better get our skates on. Altho actually it's most likely already too late, so continue with your reveries and general delirium. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20770] Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs > me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is > that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy > problem facing us today, which is global warming, not > high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives to fossil > fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as > we know it) are truly fucked. You all might want to take > a look at the latest reports on climate change. Without a > 70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide > emissions over the next twenty (yes 20) years, we are > on course to raise the planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees > and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the > course of the next century. The consequences of this are > unimaginable. Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this > context, would be a good thing. > > Ellen Frank > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Jim Devine wrote: > >>what's wrong with the > >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy > >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are > >the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > > >))) > > > >CB: Solar ? > > > >
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it in 250 years. Human civilisation depends completely on it. There are no alternatives which will allow you to enjoy the same material standards, or your children (certainly). They will live in an energy-poor slow-cooker of a planet. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky > Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises > > > > >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are > the > >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc, > >because they are not alternatives) > > Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what > exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be > around to collect. > > Doug > > > No problem. Start a fund with one penny. > In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest, > it will compound to $7.8161E+209. Longer is > more than my spreadsheet can handle. > > mbs > >
RE: Re: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
It would have been sensible to focus on the real issue, instead of allowing
yourself to get sidetracked by the irrelevancies of population-control. No
doubt middle class white fanatics in the US are capable of nuking the whole
planet rather than give up what they've got, but the fact is that they WILL
have to give it up whatever they imagine may be the alternative; and if
fascism is really the likely outcome of the end of the fossil-era, the end
of Big Oil, then why on earth aren't you/we talking ONLY about that danger
and how to ORGANISE against it?
Doug's response ('I'm a bad organiser' etc) is simply and solely a cop-out.
It is a cop-out, and nothing more. It makes him part of the problem.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
> Sent: 27 June 2000 23:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20777] Re: RE:"We used 10 times as much energy in the
> 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
>
>
>
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely,
> and obviously
> > misunderstands the issue too.
> >
>
> I understand Barlett very well. I've heard him speak. The seminars or
> workshops, or whatever they are, are funded and used to incite
> racism among the
> well-off folks who see the same environmental problem that Mark does.
> Bartlett's job, which he embraces with gusto, is to eductate
> these concerned
> white rich folks as to the solution -- and his solution is
> cutting population
> growth in part the world with darker-skinned inhabitants and
> raising fences
> around the US to keep out immigrants. Cut population and go on
> despoiling the
> world with consuming out of your high incomes.
>
> I've gone to other gatherings of the same sort -- (where
> Barlett wasn't a
> speaker) and I must say the hatred of "the other" that pours out of the
> audience as speakers talk about immigration is physically
> frightening. At one
> of them I rushed to get my wife out of the event before we were physically
> assaulted. Pure hate fed by pure fear -- overlain with an
> understanding that
> the environment is in trouble.
>
> The population movement is handsomely funded by the same
> folks who were
> behind sterilization and eugenics in the thirties. Pretty nasty
> people. The
> Pioneer Fund, for one. They are aggressively moving in on environmental
> groups.
>
> There is a relatively new enviro group called "The New
> American Dream" with
> a focus on simple living and cutting consumption. the population
> nuts have
> moved in at the top and are re-focusing the members/audience on population
> rather than consumption, the issue which attratracted them in the
> first place..
>
> Gene Coyle
>
>
Re: Re: "We used 10 times as much energy in the 20thcentury as in the 1,000
I agree Yoshie. But the problem is with the social system not with the technical feasibility. Rod Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >There is no shortage of energy! > > > >Nor of any other resource. > > > >The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our > >garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is > >inhospitable for human life. > > > >Rod > > I agree that waste management is an urgent problem, but the reason > why there is "no shortage of energy nor of any other resources" is > that the market rations their use. Econ 101 says that any shortage > can be cured by an appropriately higher price, so it seems there is > no point in celebrating an absence of shortage. The poor in poor > countries have no access to electricity, clean water, reliable > transportation, household appliances, and other goods that consume > oil and other resources in their production, because they can't > afford them. If everyone in the world were to live according to the > standards set by rich nations, wouldn't there be a problem (though > capitalism does prevent this particular problem from ever arising, > since the majority are doomed to poverty)? > > Yoshie -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Louis Proyect wrote: > > The problem today is that we have not carried out the kind of work that > Marx did in V. 3 for the ecological crisis of today. Within Marxism, there > are four schools of thought that are contending with each other: This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish" in my pen-l post. The problem posed by the four alleged "schools of thought" is not theoretical but practical, and your belief that any such theoretical work can be or needs to be carried out is as silly as Doug's frequent demand for someone to please o please provide him with a nice little scenario for revolution. Both are copouts and lead away from serious theory and practice. > [snip] > 4. Classical Marxism: This is a fairly recent trend and owes much to Paul > Burkett, author of "Marx and Nature" and John Bellamy Foster whose "Marx's > Ecology" attempts to restore the materialist component of Marx's thought. > Mark and I are obviously part of this trend, but have our own particular > areas of interest. Mark has been concentrating on the energy and global > warming questions, while my attention has been focused on ecology and > indigenous peoples. Yes I agree the house is on fire. So what do we do? > In any case, until Marxism has debated out and resolved these questions, it > will not be able to maximize its influence on the intelligentsia. I want to > stress the importance, by the way, of who our target audience is. It is not > the working-class at this point. It is a rather broad milieu of scientists > and students in various fields who are deeply distressed by the state of > the world. We are trying to win them to Marxism. Unless they understand > that the ecological crisis is rooted in the capitalist system, they will > continue to encounter frustration. This is wholly arbitrary. Until the working class is in motion, the intelligentsia in any numbers simply do not even recognize the existence of marxists, so you can hardly be having much influence on an audience consisting of empty chairs. Carrol > > > > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Carrol: >This is the part of your post which provoked the "Pish" in my pen-l post. The >problem posed by the four alleged "schools of thought" is not theoretical but >practical, and your belief that any such theoretical work can be or needs to >be carried out is as silly as Doug's frequent demand for someone to >please o please provide him with a nice little scenario for revolution. Both >are copouts and lead away from serious theory and practice. THIS IS WRONG, CARROL. IT IS NOT "PRACTICAL". IT IS "THEORETICAL". LET ME REPEAT IT WITH EMPHASIS: IT IS A THEORETICAL QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH HOW MARXISM APPROACHES THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS. THESE THEORETICAL DIFFERENCES LED TO JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER LAUNCHING HIS OWN JOURNAL "ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT" BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH O'CONNOR'S "SECOND CONTRADICTION" THESIS. IT WAS THEORETICAL DIFFERENCES WHICH LED TO A SERIES OF PUBLIC EXCHANGES BETWEEN HARVEY AND FOSTER. ALL OF THEM INVOKE THE AUTHORITY OF MARX. MEANWHILE, JOEL KOVEL WRITES: "SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS NO LANGUAGE WITHIN MARXISM BEYOND A FEW AMBIGUOUS AND SKETCHY BEGINNINGS THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE RAVAGING OF NATURE OR EXPRESSES THE CARE FOR NATURE WHICH MOTIVATES PEOPLE--MARXIST OR NOT--TO BECOME ENGAGED IN ECOLOGICAL STRUGGLE. A CALL TO OPEN THE QUESTION OF SPIRITUALITY IN MARXISM, SINCE SPIRIT, AS A MOTION WITHIN BEING, IS AT THE PROPER LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION FOR DIALECTICAL APPROPRIATION." SO AGAINST HARVEY, O'CONNOR AND FOSTER, YOU HAVE KOVEL ARGUING FOR SPIRITUALITY. I KNOW ALL THIS STUFF IS OF ZERO INTEREST TO YOU, BUT IT IS OF GREAT INTEREST TO PEOPLE IN THE FIELD. LEARN ABOUT IT. WE ALL GROW THROUGH LEARNING. HAVE A NICE DAY. AND PISH TO YOU. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: RE: My looniness
No doubt I am deluded or ignorant or stupid or some other appropriate boo word but I fail to see how the statement that extreme poverty makes people do environmentally damaging actions implies that Michael is blaming the poor for the energy crisis or any specific environmental damages. You don't mention what Michael is supposed to be blaming the poor for. The rape of forests by international timber giants in Borneo, Belize, and other places? Surely it does not imply this. Anyone who thinks that it does must be deluded, ignorant, perverse or pick your appropraite self-designating boo word. Do you mean some general enegy shortage or crisis? Surely it does not imply that either.I took Michael to be making the point that for the poor concern for the environment must often take second place to immediate survival. The poor women of the Chipko movement were not interested in saving the forests. They wanted their share of the wood. That is why they hugged the trees so that they would not be cut. And is that so stupid? Only in Shiva's dream and after the movement was hijacked was it primarily an ecological movement. The peasants wanted the wood for fuel and to make farm implements. Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices there is a definite income bias involved. The relatively well off can continue to drive their SUV's etc. while the lower middle classes will be priced right out of the automobile market. This saves oil but in a totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy relatively cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of automobiles while those well off continue as before. Why not ration gasoline as was done in wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for the rich. Cheers, Ken Hanly Mark Jones wrote: > For once, I agree with Doug, who is right: it took you exaclty five minutes > in this debate, to begin YOURSELF to start blaming the (over-breeding?) > poor in neocolonial countries. > > How are the new Nike's BTW? > > Mark Jones > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman > > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:46 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:20766] My looniness > > > > > > I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was > > stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. > > 1. The the > > rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That > > extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. > > > > > > Mark Jones wrote: > > > > > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > > > > helped if the very > > > > poor became better off -- > > > > > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read > > all day, no, > > > all week. > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chico, CA 95929 > > 530-898-5321 > > fax 530-898-5901 > > > >
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
> Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was > making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary, You're doing a good job. This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note. By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do anything about it. Until it does, nobody except some e-mail listers is moved to even talk about it. Higher prices can stretch out the period over which a resource is exhausted, and spur technology, but I take your point that there are natural and technical limits to the rate at which one can escape scarcities. So escape is not guaranteed. I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money to be made, coordination problems aside. To me that's more likely than green consciousness leading to revolution. And you should have tasted the chicken I barbecued this past week-end . . . mbs
Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises
>Bill Burgess wrote: > >> Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises >> >> >> I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is >> undeniable that >> better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of >> non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the >> outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. > >This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate >these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely >no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the >evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. > >Mark Jones Ummm... Paul Ehrlich *did* lose his bet with Julian Simon. Market prices of non-renewable resources *have* fallen over the past quarter century. Seek truth from facts... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times asmuch energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
> >Be very careful. The population of the rich grows in two ways: (i) >>the rich have lots of children, and (ii) the poor become rich... > >do you know that african american women are sterilized at a significantly >higher rate than white women? (according to our sociologist friend, >Andy Austin, 3-4 times) doesn't it also bother you that the US elite >(particulary the new right) celebrate the decline in black fertility >rates? What bothers you actually? > >Mine That worry about "overpopulation" soon turns into an action plan aimed at making sure that the poor people of the world--and their descendants--stay poor... Brad DeLong
Dematerialization, decarbonation, post-capitalism and the entropy liberation front
One of the possible ways to make an eco-socialist message palatable to the scientists/engineers currently under capital's thumb$$'s is to show that a significant change in the property rights/class structure would vastly accelerate trends that capital pays them to analyze but not communicate to the wider public. This might entail flirting with neo-luddism [see Nick Dyer-Witheford's latest book] only to make the larger point that energy markets are already planned--just undemocratically. The formation of the entropy liberation front :-) [organized by Doug H.] would convert us from tree huggers to tree planters; especially since we need to plant enough trees to equal the size of India every year just to maintain the current "level" of carbon sinks from now until [?] http://phe.rockefeller.edu/Daedalus/Demat/ "the ocean is the ultimate solution" -- Frank Zappa
Re: Re: Re: Reply to Carrol Cox
Louis Proyect wrote: > > THIS IS WRONG, CARROL. IT IS NOT "PRACTICAL". IT IS "THEORETICAL". LET ME > REPEAT IT WITH EMPHASIS: IT IS A THEORETICAL QUESTION. IT HAS TO DO WITH Lou, I followed with great interest the debate you and Mark had with Jim Heartfield some years ago and you convinced me pretty completely. I said at that time -- forget Jim Heartfield, and let's get on with it. In other words, you and Mark, so far as I can tell, have actually persuaded just one person -- Me! You haven't had the tiniest effect on anyone else as far as I can see. So what are you going to do with your one single solitary convert -- you are going to swear at him for saying, let's see how we can do something about it. It's pretty clear that you and Mark are no longer interested in socialist revolution. You much prefer to stand at the edge of the abyss and scream. I had enough of that shit with the Weathermen 30 years ago. You have a really fine political mind -- but you are almost deliberately trashing it. Anyone who takes you and Mark really seriously can only conclude that further political theorizing or organizing is pointless. The world is over. Forget it. Let's go to the movies. Carrol
Re: Malthus revisited
Louis Proyect wrote: > > Mark Jones' alleged raising of the overpopulation question leads us once > again into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus. I would refer > PEN-L'ers to Michael Perelman's "Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor and > Finance", specifically chapter two on "Marx, Malthus, and the Concept of > Natural Resource Scarcity". It is one of the best things I have ever read > on the subject. A useful resource (no pun) is the collection edited by Ronald Meek *MArx and Engels on the Population Bomb* It includes a fine review essay by Meek himself who argues that Keynes was Malthus in modern garb. Marx and Engels both pointed some of their most fiery polemics at Malthus. Malthus was obviously wrong, birth rates decline when absolute poverty is alleviated and food production increased. As Marx argues in "Malthus as Apologist" in volii of TSV, Malthus' MO was in defending the interests of the landed aristocracy. "not a man of science but a bought advocate, a pleader on behalf of their enemies, a shameless sycophant of the ruling classes"The same thing carries on today, with the landed aristocracy being the most forceful advocates of Malthusianism and the Malthusianism of the mainstream environmental movement (Sierra Club etc.) as well as being the main financial backers of said movement. Sam Pawlett
Samir Amin: "Pure economics is a parascience"
(Final chapter of "Spectres of Capitalism") Pure Economics, or the Contemporary Worlds Witchcraft In all the universities of the contemporary world an odd sort of subject is taught called economic science, or simply economics, as one might say "physics." It would take as its field of study the economic life of a society, with the aspiration of scientifically explaining its crucial magnitudes such as prices, wages, incomes, rates of interest, foreign exchange rates, and total unemployment. However, and this fact is strange indeed, while scientific research takes reality as its point of departure, economics is based on a resolutely anti-realistic founding principle. This principle, called "methodological individualism," treats society as nothing more than the aggregate of its component individuals, each of which, as 'Homo oeconomicus', is in turn defined in terms of laws expressing what, for it, would be rational behavior. It is left rather unclear whether, in the outlook of this "science," the mental structure built on the basis of interaction among these behaviors is supposed to give us a picture approximating social reality, or whether it is put forward normatively, as a model of an ideal social order. It is a platitude, undeniable as such, that individuals are the basic elements of any society. But what reason is there not to take into account that real society, far from being built up out of direct encounters among individual behaviors, is an infinitely more complex structure combining social classes, nations, states, big businesses, collective projects, and political and ideological forces. Economists take no notice of these obvious realities, because they are hindrances to constructing a "pure economics" and revealing its fundamental laws, meaning the laws which would follow from an economic structure stripped of any social dimension except the interaction of purely individual projects and activities. It might at best, perhaps, be an enjoyable mental game to make up this pure economics, but is it at all related to reality? Luckily for our health, doctors have not made up a "pure medicine" after the fashion of pure economics." Can one imagine a medical science which models the workings of the human body on the exclusive basis of cells, taken to be the only fundamental elements of the human body, while deliberately taking no notice of bodily organs like the heart or liver? It is about as likely that the most complex model, if restricted to interactions among cells, would produce anything resembling a human body as it is that the random pecking of a pigeon at a keyboard would produce the complete works of Shakespeare! The same goes for the likelihood of reaching a general equilibriumand an optimal one no lessby virtue of market encounters among five billion human beings. Taking this absurd starting point as a legitimate one leads to bizarre paraphilosophical effusions. Friedrich Von Hayek, who our neoliberal economists take as their guru, could not refuse to admit the existence of nations, national states, social classes, and a few other aspects of reality, but he was quite content to dismiss them as "irrational" residues. He thus was glad to set up a mythical rationality in place of the search for rational explication of reality. A human being certainly belongs to the class of rational animals, and its behaviors, even the oddest among them, can probably be comprehended. But only on the condition that the particular rational processes motivating human actions be placed in an appropriate framework to specify contextually their scope and their mechanisms. In other words, a holistic stance, which bases its reasoning on real totalities (firms, classes, states), is the only attitude from which science can proceed. Classical political economy (and the adjective "political" was not there by chance) as practiced by Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and Keynes, adopted this scientific attitude as a matter of course. Furthermore, as an intelligent animal, a human being modifies its behavior to take account of the responses it expects from others. Accordingly, the models of pure economics ought to be based on the rationality requirements not of a simple-minded and immediate response (price comes downI buy more), but of a response mediated by expectations of other peoples responses (Ill postpone my purchases if I think the price will go down even further). Is a model comprising all these individual subjective data even possible? And if so, would it go to the heart of the problem or would it be beside the point? Pure economics starts off with musings about the behavior of Robinson Crusoe on his island, choosing between consuming now and storing up for the future. But its "Robinsonisms" go further. So these economists picture the world as made up of five billion Crusoes. Their textbooks start with a bizarre opening chapter in which these five billion elemental units are presented as "pure consumers," each initially
GM crops and reduced pesticide use
Some opponents of GM seeds claim that there is no reduced pesticide use with GM crops. For example Shiva makes this claim as does John Warnock in a recent Dimension article. Here are a few studies collected by Doug Powell. Powell is pro-GM seeds but nevertheless gives some useful data. THe "facts" on Roundup should be taken with a grain of Bt. Monsanto's independent research will require even more dilution. Nevertheless, I agree with Powell's conclusion that farmers must look to their own specific conditions. It is noteworthy that Monsanto's recent propaganda pamphlet for its particular brand of Roundup Ready canola uses independent data from the Canola Growers Association and gives results for different growing regions comparing its own canola with others. This is the sort of thing that makes sense to farmers. In fact around here at least farmers have data re yields on the basis of regions of the province so that they can see which variety looks to do best in their own region. . . CHeers, Ken Hanly http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/gmo/ge-crops-red-pesticide-fct-sheet.htm Genetically Engineered Crops and Reduced Pesticide Use Created: March 16, 2000 Last updated: May 2, 2000 Agri-food Risk Management and Communications Project Fact Sheet Contact: Douglas Powell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of genetically engineered crops with input traits for pest management -- primarily herbicide and insect resistance derived from naturally-occurring soil bacteria -- has risen dramatically since their introduction in the mid-1990's (USDA/ERS 1999). Varieties with herbicide-tolerant traits account for the majority of transgenic crops and have shown the most rapid adoption by North American producers, followed by insect-resistant varieties. The rapid adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops is mainly due to the introduction of Roundup Ready crops in 1996 which allowed the use of glycophosate (Roundup) as a postemergence herbicide at any stage of growth. (Capenter and Gianessi, 1999). The popularity of Roundup Ready crops (eg. soybeans and cotton) has been attributed to the increased flexibility and simplicity of weed control program (Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999). Other benefits include increased productivity, cost reduction and environmental benefits through reduction in the use of conventional pesticides (James, 1998). A survey of farmers in the U.S. found the top two reasons for adoption of both herbicide- and insect-resistant crops were increased yields through improved pest control, and decreased pesticide input costs (USDA, 1999). The high adoption rates reflect increasing grower satisfaction with these products. Chemical inputs are usually still required on herbicide-resistant crops, however, they are used at a lower application rate, require fewer applications, and are more benign than traditional herbicides (USDA, 1999). Several media accounts have alleged that Roundup Ready and other herbicide resistant varieties require the use of more, if not the same, amount of chemical inputs, and have therefore not delivered the anticipated environmental and economic benefits. Comparisons between herbicide use for conventional and transgenic varieties should consider the amount of active ingredient used per acre, not the total amount of herbicide per acre, as well as toxicity and persistence in the environment. For example, while newer, low-dose materials or the use of STS soybeans (soybeans resistant to sufonylurea) can reduce herbicide use to less than one-tenth of a pound of active ingredient per acre in contrast to 0.75 or 1.5 pounds per acre of Roundup (Benbrook, 1999), these other herbicides, including sulfonylurea, can persist in the environment with the potential for deleterious consequences. Glycophosate, the active ingredient in Roundup affects only those crops on which it is sprayed and is deactivated once it contacts soil thus reducing risk of leaching or runoff into ground water (Agcare factsheet). Glycophosate is also known for its low toxicity to human and animal populations. There is evidence that in many areas, the use of herbicide-resistant and Roundup Ready crops has led to a reduction in chemical pesticide use. During 1996 and 1997, Roundup Ready soybeans delivered a 9-39 per cent drop in herbicide use, mainly by replacing soil-incorporated herbicides with Roundup (James, 1998). And although other data indicate that the total amount of herbicide used from has changed little since the introduction of Roundup Ready varieties (Carpenter and Gianessi, 2000), the data does show a 8% decrease in number of applications from 1995 - 1998 which translates into fewer active ingredients used and fewer trips over the field (Carpenter and Gianessi, 2000). Culpepper and York (1998) found that the greatest advantage of herbicide-resistant varieties was decreased herbicide use. Herbicide treatment systems that included Roundup Ready cotton required fewer herbicide treatments and less total herbicide
Re: RE: energy crises
Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a function of current technology and priceand world politics. If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted, how do we guess if there is 10 years or 1,000 years worth left? How much is in the Alberta tar sands? I wrote that technology and prices can (not _will_) increase reserves faster than consumption; I suppose I should have added under certain conditions, and for a time, but I didn't realize this was necessary. The point is that capitalism has access to more oil now than when OPEC shook things up in the 1970s, and real oil prices can still rise a lot before they reach heights that capitalism was able to stumble over without falling flat on its back. Sorry, it is not abundantly clear to me why dwindling oil is a sound political focus for anti-capitalists. Bill: > > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is > > undeniable that > > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of > > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the > > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries. Mark: >This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate >these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely >no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the >evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear. and, that >What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate >under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of >no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle >NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it >in 250 years.
Re: My looniness
I could not answer any better than Ken did. I was also thinking of farmers in Latin America being booted off their lands and then farming on the hills. Am I blaming the peasants? Of course not. I was only making the point that increasing their ability to survive would decrease the pressure that makes them do environmentally destructive things. I don't mind if someone accuses me of something stupid. Surely I have contributed my share of stupidity/looniness to the list and to others -- but why are we so quick to ascribe racism, sexism, . to anything that seems to sound as if it does not say what is expected. Ken Hanly wrote: > No doubt I am deluded or ignorant or stupid or some other appropriate boo word > but I fail to see how > the statement that extreme poverty makes people do environmentally damaging > actions implies > that Michael is blaming the poor for the energy crisis or any specific > environmental damages. You don't mention what Michael is supposed to be blaming > the poor for. The rape of forests by international timber giants in Borneo, > Belize, and other places? Surely it does not imply this. Anyone who thinks that > it does must be deluded, ignorant, perverse or pick your appropraite > self-designating boo word. Do you mean some general enegy shortage or crisis? > Surely it does not imply that either.I took Michael to be making the point that > for the poor concern for the environment must often take second place to > immediate survival. > The poor women of the Chipko movement were not interested in saving the forests. > They wanted their share of the wood. That is why they hugged the trees so that > they would not be cut. And is that so stupid? Only in Shiva's dream and after > the movement was hijacked was it primarily an ecological movement. The peasants > wanted the wood for fuel and to make farm implements. > Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices there is a > definite income bias > involved. The relatively well off can continue to drive their SUV's etc. while > the lower middle classes will be priced right out of the automobile market. This > saves oil but in a totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy > relatively cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy > pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of automobiles > while those well off continue as before. Why not ration gasoline as was done in > wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for the rich. > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > Mark Jones wrote: > > > For once, I agree with Doug, who is right: it took you exaclty five minutes > > in this debate, to begin YOURSELF to start blaming the (over-breeding?) > > poor in neocolonial countries. > > > > How are the new Nike's BTW? > > > > Mark Jones > > http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman > > > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:46 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [PEN-L:20766] My looniness > > > > > > > > > I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was > > > stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. > > > 1. The the > > > rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That > > > extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. > > > > > > > > > Mark Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > > > > > helped if the very > > > > > poor became better off -- > > > > > > > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read > > > all day, no, > > > > all week. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Michael Perelman > > > Economics Department > > > California State University > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > 530-898-5321 > > > fax 530-898-5901 > > > > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises
Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman. Eugene Coyle wrote: > What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ -- > "the market will solve the problem"? > > Gene Coyle > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop" > > technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time. > > > > -- > > > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Chico, CA 95929 > > 530-898-5321 > > fax 530-898-5901 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: GM crops and reduced pesticide use
Ken, could it be that in the short run that the herbicide knows out more of the habitat that harbored pests. Wouldn't we have to wait to see what sort of pests adapt to the environment and then make the determination about the pesticide use? Ken Hanly wrote: Some opponents of GM seeds claim that there is no reduced pesticide use with GM crops. For example Shiva makes this claim as does John Warnock in a recent Dimension article. Here are a few studies collected by Doug Powell. Powell is pro-GM seeds but nevertheless gives some useful data. THe "facts" on Roundup should be taken with a grain of Bt. Monsanto's independent research will require even more dilution. Nevertheless, I agree with Powell's conclusion that farmers must look to their own specific conditions. It is noteworthy that Monsanto's recent propaganda pamphlet for its particular brand of Roundup Ready canola uses independent data from the Canola Growers Association and gives results for different growing regions comparing its own canola with others. This is the sort of thing that makes sense to farmers. In fact around here at least farmers have data re yields on the basis of regions of the province so that they can see which variety looks to do best in their own region. . . CHeers, Ken Hanly http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/safefood/gmo/ge-crops-red-pesticide-fct-sheet.htm Genetically Engineered Crops and Reduced Pesticide Use Created: March 16, 2000 Last updated: May 2, 2000 Agri-food Risk Management and Communications Project Fact Sheet Contact: Douglas Powell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of genetically engineered crops with input traits for pest management -- primarily herbicide and insect resistance derived from naturally-occurring soil bacteria -- has risen dramatically since their introduction in the mid-1990's (USDA/ERS 1999). Varieties with herbicide-tolerant traits account for the majority of transgenic crops and have shown the most rapid adoption by North American producers, followed by insect-resistant varieties. The rapid adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops is mainly due to the introduction of Roundup Ready crops in 1996 which allowed the use of glycophosate (Roundup) as a postemergence herbicide at any stage of growth. (Capenter and Gianessi, 1999). The popularity of Roundup Ready crops (eg. soybeans and cotton) has been attributed to the increased flexibility and simplicity of weed control program (Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999). Other benefits include increased productivity, cost reduction and environmental benefits through reduction in the use of conventional pesticides (James, 1998). A survey of farmers in the U.S. found the top two reasons for adoption of both herbicide- and insect-resistant crops were increased yields through improved pest control, and decreased pesticide input costs (USDA, 1999). The high adoption rates reflect increasing grower satisfaction with these products. Chemical inputs are usually still required on herbicide-resistant crops, however, they are used at a lower application rate, require fewer applications, and are more benign than traditional herbicides (USDA, 1999). Several media accounts have alleged that Roundup Ready and other herbicide resistant varieties require the use of more, if not the same, amount of chemical inputs, and have therefore not delivered the anticipated environmental and economic benefits. Comparisons between herbicide use for conventional and transgenic varieties should consider the amount of active ingredient used per acre, not the total amount of herbicide per acre, as well as toxicity and persistence in the environment. For example, while newer, low-dose materials or the use of STS soybeans (soybeans resistant to sufonylurea) can reduce herbicide use to less than one-tenth of a pound of active ingredient per acre in contrast to 0.75 or 1.5 pounds per acre of Roundup (Benbrook, 1999), these other herbicides, including sulfonylurea, can persist in the environment with the potential for deleterious consequences. Glycophosate, the active ingredient in Roundup affects only those crops on which it is sprayed and is deactivated once it contacts soil thus reducing risk of leaching or runoff into ground water (Agcare factsheet). Glycophosate is also known for its low toxicity to human and animal populations. There is evidence that in many areas, the use of herbicide-resistant and Roundup Ready crops has led to a reduction in chemical pesticide use. During 1996 and 1997, Roundup Ready soybeans delivered a 9-39 per cent drop in herbicide use, mainly by replacing soil-incorporated herbicides with Roundup (James, 1998). And although other data indicate that the total amount of herbicide used from has changed little since the introduction of Roundup Ready varieties (Carpenter and Gianessi, 2000), the data does show a 8% decrease in number of applications from 1995 - 1998 which translates into fewer active ingredients used and fewer trips over the field (Carpenter and Gianessi, 2000). Cul
"We used 10 times as muchenergy in the 20th century as in the 1,000
Why is it that when ever the price of gasoline goes up a few cents, we hear Chicken Little screaming "Energy Crisis"? Gasoline is still the cheapest liquid you can buy. What is it in the US, about $2.00 a gallon? Try to buy any other liquid for the same price. There is no shortage of energy! Nor of any other resource. The environmental problem we have to solve is how to get rid of our garbage without fouling our environment to such an extent that it is inhospitable for human life. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
My looniness
I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. 1. The the rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. Mark Jones wrote: > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > > helped if the very > > poor became better off -- > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read all day, no, > all week. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
My looniness (fwd)
Michael! how can you say this? I am not saying you mean it, but isn't it a racist common sense that, for example, Mexicans damage the environment more so regulary than white people, or let's say, from a capitalist point of view, working classes are less responsible towards environment than the rich. I hope I misunderstood your second statement.. Mine >I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points. 1. The the rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. Mark Jones wrote: > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be > > helped if the very > > poor became better off -- > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read all day, no, > all week. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
