Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
Sabri Oncu wrote, Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker
n the necessity of socialism and grammar
G'day Tom'n'Sabri, Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. I know where you're coming from, Tom, or at least I know there's a big unutterable there somewhere that we all come from and dwell in (I have only recently allowed myself to let the prepositions hang; wow, it's like peeing outadoors!). To avoid confusion, though, I'd not call it God - admit rather, and often, that whereof we cannot speak we must pass over in silence. Apropos of which, I append this, a favourite (necessarily longish) quote, by Pommie composer Anthony Powers (which can be had in full at http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,563387,00.html : I came back to the Tractatus after reading Ray Monk's life of Wittgenstein and Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher, says Powers. What became clear to me was how misinterpreted the Tractatus had been by mid-20th- century linguistic philosophers, and how what it was really about was the importance of recognising non- linguistic reality. The logical positivists and linguistic analysts thought everything could be said if it was said in the right kind of controlled and logical way. But the Tractatus is saying almost the opposite - that there are so many dimensions of life and experience that are beyond the capability of language to explain or even adequately express. The famous last sentence of the Tractatus - What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence - is, according to Powers, meant as an injunction to philosophers to put up or shut up, and certainly not as a discouragement to musicians. According to Wittgenstein, there are huge things - the whole areas of moral and religious philosophy and aesthetics - that cannot be 'said' but can be 'shown', says Powers. The honest thing philosophically is to be silent about those things. What I'm trying to do is to show in the piece that music is a way of reaching into that silence. Cheers, Rob.
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism by Doug Henwood 22 February 2002 05:30 UTC Sabri Oncu wrote: P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Doug Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. (Sorry to be serious on a joke thread )
Re: n the necessity of socialism and grammar
Rob wrote, To avoid confusion, though, I'd not call it God -snip- The famous last sentence of the Tractatus - What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence This suggests to me that as much as I sympathize with the aim of avoiding confusion, confusion cannot be avoided. That too is inherent in the limitation of language. Tower of Babel and all that. Tom Walker
Thu., Feb. 28: Death's Dream Kingdom: American Culture after 911
Critical Perspectives on Wars, Classes, Empires Death's Dream Kingdom: the American Culture after 911 Speaker: Walter Davis About the Speaker: Walter Davis is a professor of English at the Ohio State University. His publications include _Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, and the Tragic Imperative_ (2001), _The Holocaust Memorial: A Play About Hiroshima_ (2001), _Inwardness and Existence: Subjectivity in/and Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, and Freud_ (1989), and _Get the Guests: Psychoanalysis, Modern American Drama, and the Audience_ (1994). Date: Thursday, February 28 Time: 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Location: 115 Stillman, OSU, 1947 College Rd., Columbus, OH What if the most important questions about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center as historical Events transcend the terms of the current debate and the underlying framework it serves? What if the true function of the dominant system of rules of inquires, be they ethical or historical, is to prevent us from even attempting other, deeper inquiries, by plunging us into that dream-state in which you run without moving from a terror in which you cannot believe toward a safety in which you have no faith (Absalom, Absalom!)? What if 911, like Hiroshima, is uniquely revelatory of all that we do not know - and do not want to know - about our culture? What if, instead of following the dominant system of rules, we approached history as a reality - and a discipline - in which we must risk ourselves utterly? What if we dared to internalize an experience that shatters the economy of ideas and beliefs on which the American identity depends? To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it 'the way it really was' (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger (Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History). Sponsors: the Student International Forum and Social Welfare Action Alliance. OSU Campus Map: www.osu.edu/map/linkbuildings/stillmanhall.html. Calendar of Events: www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html. For more info, contact Yoshie Furuhashi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-668-6554; or Keith Kilty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-292-7181. Download the flyer for the teach-in at http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/death.doc. Download the flyer for other upcoming SIF/SWAA events at http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar8.doc. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
- Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker = Have you let Jerry Falwell in on this? The Pope, being a fan of Husserl and Heidegger might get it, but Jerry needs your help. http://www.falwell.com/ :- Ian
Krugman Komes Around
[Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] New York TIMES/February 22, 2002 The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won. Celebrating victory well in advance seems to be the style lately. And that includes the economic front. Both the administration and many business leaders have taken a modest improvement in economic indicators as proof that the economy is poised for full recovery. They could be right - but don't count on it. The good news to date consists mainly of evidence not that things are getting better but that they are getting worse more slowly. New claims for unemployment insurance have fallen; that means fewer people are being laid off, but not that laid-off workers are finding new jobs. Industrial production has stabilized; that means that companies have worked off the excess inventory that led them to slash production in 2001, but not that demand for their products has increased. We won't have a serious recovery until what economists call final demand shows substantial increases, and workers start being rehired. Where will that recovery come from? This has not been a standard recession, in which nervous consumers pulled back and will start spending again once they have been reassured. In fact, consumers have continued to spend freely right through the slump. So the surge in consumer demand that usually drives recovery seems unlikely. What drove this recession was a plunge in business spending, as companies realized that they had over invested in the bubble years. Thus far there is very little evidence that companies are willing to start spending again anytime soon. And even if they did feel like spending, banks and financial markets, spooked by the Enron scandal, are reluctant to make the money available. The only clear force for recovery I see is the administration's military splurge. After all, even useless weapons spending does create jobs, at least for a while. Japan props up its economy by building bridges to nowhere; the Bush administration buys Crusader artillery systems and F-22's. Against this, there are at least three important forces that will place a drag on the economy. First is the impact of unemployment. The number of Americans without jobs seems to have stabilized, but their pain is growing: more and more of the unemployed have been without jobs for months rather than weeks, and a rapidly growing number have exhausted their benefits (which House leaders have refused to extend). Will consumer demand remain robust as the human toll of recession becomes increasingly apparent? Second is the plight of state and local government. The Pentagon may be getting everything it wants, and then some, but state and local governments are desperate; they will be slashing spending, laying off workers and even raising taxes - all with depressing effects on the economy. Finally, there's line 47. You haven't heard about that, but you will. Here's the story. The Bush administration didn't want to give those famous $300 rebate checks; its original plan would have pumped hardly any money into the economy last year. Under prodding from Democrats the plan was changed to incorporate immediate cash outlays. But those outlays were included only grudgingly, and with a catch: they really weren't rebates. Instead, they were merely advances on future tax cuts. What that means is that most taxpayers, when they reach line 47 of their 1040's, will discover that they owe $300 more in taxes than they expected. In other words, the one piece of the Bush tax cut that probably did help the economy last year is about to be snatched away. The direct monetary impact will be significant; the psychological impact, as taxpayers realize that they've been misled, may be even greater. Many forecasters think that the impact of these drags on the economy will be a recovery that is slow and generates so few jobs that it feels more like a continuing recession. A few analysts - notably Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, who deserves a medal for his dogged skepticism about the new economy during the bubble years - think that we're headed for a W-shaped or double-dip recession, in which we have reached a bottom but not the bottom. Personally, I find the pessimists more convincing than the optimists - though any economist who honestly keeps track of his own forecasting record quickly learns to be humble. What's certain is that it's much too soon to declare victory. - Of course, we also have to remember Sabri's L scenario. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? the transformation of capitalism into socialism? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23057] Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar] Rev. Tom writes: Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. I was raised as a Unitarian, a faith that believes that there exists at most one god (and argues about whether or not to capitalize). So my question: is why believe in the existence or non-existence of god?[*] why not simply express ignorance on this question? As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. Similarly, all the empirical evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. People have religious experiences in which they encounter supernatural entities who they interpret as good. But looking at the so-called Holy Land suggests that there ain't anything holy in this world of ours. But we'll never know. (BTW, the issue of the so-called transformation problem isn't analogous to that of the existence of supernatural entities. It's a standard scholastic trap that ensnares the left the way other scholastic traps that keep non-leftists out of trouble. If it didn't exist, the Mandarin-minded Marxists (MMMs) would think up some other problem to keep themselves occupied. Besides, there's an easy solution...) ;-) [*]Economic theory suggests that we shouldn't be concerned only with the existence of god but also its stability and uniqueness. As is the god of 2002 the same as the one of 1999? Just as the real GDP of 2002 isn't strictly speaking comparable to that of 1999, perhaps there are index-number problems... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 6:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23057] Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar Sabri Oncu wrote, Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker
RE: RE: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? I have a most marvellous solution to this one, but it will not quite fit into this margin ... dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: Mommy, what's a corporation?
The POCLAD movement is slowly building, based on the long-term strategy of Richard Grossman. To me it is the most appealing campaign for democracy within capitalism. Everything else, including most of what I do, isn't so promising. The POCLAD book which Michael mentions is DEFYING CORPORATIONS, DEFINING DEMOCRACY is interesting. Subtitled A Book of History Strategy it is a book of readings, with the usual strengths and weaknesses of that. For California Pen-Lers, Grossman will be in California in early March. Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: The woman who did the index for my book was a friend of the editor of the Poclad book. She put us in touch for a bit. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tue., Mar. 5: _The Battle of Algiers_
Progressive Film Series: Critical Perspectives on Wars, Classes, Empires _The Battle of Algiers_ Dir. Gillo Pontecorvo, 1965 Winner of the Golden Lion at the 27th Venice International Film Festival Date: Tue., March 5 Time: 7:30 p.m. Location: 264 MacQuigg Lab, OSU, 105 W. Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH _The Battle of Algiers_...remains the basis of Pontecorvo's fame -- a model of how, without prejudice or compromise, a film-maker can illuminate history and tell us how we repeat the same mistakes. In fact, this study of the Algerian guerrilla struggle against the French colonialists in the 50s ought to be looked at not just as pure cinema but as a warning to those who seek by force to crush independence movements. -- Derek Malcolm, _The Guardian_ What we have witnessed is a radical transformation of the means of perception, of the very world of perception. - Frantz Fanon, _A Dying Colonialism_ Sponsors: the Student International Forum and Social Welfare Action Alliance. OSU Campus Map: www.osu.edu/map/linkbuildings/macquigglab.html. Calendar of Events: www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html. For more info, contact Yoshie Furuhashi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-668-6554; or Keith Kilty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-292-7181. Download the flyer for _The Battle of Algiers_ at http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/algiers.doc. Download the flyer for other upcoming SIF/SWAA events at http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar8.doc. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
In the spirit of Sabri Oncu's cheerleading the one I like best is Go Reds, beat State. Gene Coyle Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go Marxian economists, Go! === Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian
Re: On the necessity of socialism
In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Charles writes Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I agree with Doug's negative response to this question. Gil
Re: Re: Re: Mommy, what's a corporation?
- Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23068] Re: Re: Mommy, what's a corporation? The POCLAD movement is slowly building, based on the long-term strategy of Richard Grossman. To me it is the most appealing campaign for democracy within capitalism. Everything else, including most of what I do, isn't so promising. The POCLAD book which Michael mentions is DEFYING CORPORATIONS, DEFINING DEMOCRACY is interesting. Subtitled A Book of History Strategy it is a book of readings, with the usual strengths and weaknesses of that. For California Pen-Lers, Grossman will be in California in early March. Gene Coyle = Richard is one of the few people in the world who owns the entire collection of Morris Cohen's legal writings as well as lots of stuff by other legal realists. He's also a big fan of Morton Horwitz' writings. I also think there's not much in, say, David Schweickart's 'Against Capitalism' that he'd disagree with in terms of the relations between markets and governance issues. Other members of POCLAD like the appeal of Mondragon -with it's strengths, acknowledging the weaknesses- but their strategy is to first open a public discussion regarding the legal history of US capitalism so as to respect limited government with greater civic participation in economic affairs in order to attenuate class conflict. They respect economies of scale and aren't of afraid of bigness as long as it doesn't lead to institutional rigidity and unaccountability. My guess is that if the discussion in the US reached a level that Richard and the others hope for, the signifiers of 'capitalism' and 'private property' would mutate into something a bit more complex. They'll tell you we have to come up with the answers --the cookbooks if you will-- together. Ian
Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
On 22 Feb 02, at 8:23, Devine, James wrote: [*]Economic theory suggests that we shouldn't be concerned only with the existence of god but also its stability and uniqueness. As is the god of 2002 the same as the one of 1999? Just as the real GDP of 2002 isn't strictly speaking comparable to that of 1999, perhaps there are index-number problems... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. Sounds like God to me. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: On the necessity of socialism
In a message dated 2/20/2002 2:37:31 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the necessity of socialism Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 During the CPUSA's pre-convention period about a year ago, we had a rather lively discussion of socialism in the party and in our publications, and there was a convention panel on socialism. But the discussion never reached beyond our circles, partly because of its nature. It largely pivoted on whether Bill of Rights socialism was an appropriate concept and term. Most of us had opinions about this, but it wasn't a discussion that would interest wider circles of people, certainly not one that would attract them to socialism. Most would think that we were splitting hairs. Since then we have not broached the subject in any meaningful way. Where it does appear in our discussion and literature, it is by and large an addendum, tacked on at the end in way that would not convince anybody of the wisdom of our socialist objective. We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category. I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet. Nuclear annihilation is one possibility that we mistakenly thought fell off the radar screen with the end of the Cold War. An ecological crisis of planetary dimensions lurks somewhere in this century unless something changes. Hunger, unemployment and pandemic diseases are now cutting wide swaths across the globe. A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices. And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century. Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face. Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature. If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all. This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism. We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust working class and people's democracy. Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it with a new urgency, a new necessity. Clearly, socialism is not on labor's and the people's action agenda either now or in the near term. No one should think that at their next union meeting, they should offer a resolution to establish socialism by the end of the decade in order to insure the survival of humanity and nature! Our main emphasis now and for the foreseeable future is on the immediate struggles of the working class and people against the right danger. That was the direction that we set at our convention last summer and it is all the more imperative now. On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal "Political Affairs" from the early or mid 1930s to 1963 or 64. I am always amazed
Earnings Management Corporate Governance
http://www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Rowland.pdf
RE: Krugman Komes Around
Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
Re: Krugman Komes Around
Devine, James wrote: Of course, we also have to remember Sabri's L scenario. Hey, if we're talking intellectual property, this is what I wrote last May: LUV song. But we're back to the question from 1,700 words ago: if no boom, what next? Debate on this issue boils down into a letter game: will the course of the economy be like a V (short, sharp decline followed by a strong recovery), a U (a more protracted version of the V), or an L (a long stagnation)? At this point, the V seems least likely; the usual leading indicators are suggesting stabilization, but no imminent recovery. [...] Doug
Re: Re: Re: Mommy, what's a corporation?
- Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23068] Re: Re: Mommy, what's a corporation? The POCLAD movement is slowly building, based on the long-term strategy of Richard Grossman. To me it is the most appealing campaign for democracy within capitalism. Everything else, including most of what I do, isn't so promising. Btw, the last time I talked to Richard, he suggested the following piece ought to be looked at by all troublemakers who can get their hands on it: ARTICLE The Thirteenth Amendment Versus the Commerce Clause: Labor and the Shaping of American Constitutional Law, 1921-1957 James Gray Pope Vol. 102 · January 2002 · No. 1 http://www.columbialawreview.org/
Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above
Jim Devine wrote, As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. I agree absolutely there's no logical argument for or against. My own position is based entirely and radically on grammar. Tom Walker
RE: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. Sounds like God to me. strictly speaking, these folks are like good theologians: they assume that God exists. The stupid ones don't know that it's an assumption. Jim Devine
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above
- Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23078] Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above Jim Devine wrote, As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. I agree absolutely there's no logical argument for or against. My own position is based entirely and radically on grammar. Tom Walker === 'Where' does logic 'end' and grammar 'begin'? :- Sorites
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above
Indeed, there is an argument against the existence of god, the one of Claude Bernard to Napoleon: this hypothesis is of no use. - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23078] Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combination of the above Jim Devine wrote, As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. I agree absolutely there's no logical argument for or against. My own position is based entirely and radically on grammar. Tom Walker
Economists vs CEOs
Recovery Signs Don't Include CEOs By Michael McKee Washington, Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- While economists are looking for a more rapid U.S. recovery than they were a month ago, chief executives at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Dell Computer Corp., Eaton Corp. and most of the biggest companies don't see it. Recent statistics showing a rise in retail sales, a surge in housing starts and a slowing pace of decline in industrial production have led analysts and investors to revise their forecasts. Corporate chiefs say profits will remain under stress. The tone of executive remarks may not be the best barometer of the economy's performance, history shows. Corporate pessimism just goes with the territory, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Gary Stern said in an interview last week. If you go back to the commentary following the 1990-1991 recession or the 1980-1982 recession, you'll find much the same attitude: 'Oh, this is going to be a slow recovery, we're going to have trouble making money, the economy is very fragile,' and so forth, Stern said. Corporate earnings are a lagging indicator, improving only after the economy has begun to pick up. Companies are likely to report their fifth straight quarter of declining earnings in the first quarter of 2002, according to Thomson Financial/First Call. By contrast, the economy is likely to expand during the first quarter of this year at a 2.3 percent pace, according to the median of nine forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. That compares with a December estimate that the economy would contract at a 0.1 percent rate. Chuck Hill, director of research at Thomson Financial/First Call, said there's about a three-month lag between when the economy starts to turn and when chief executives begin to see evidence in the bottom line. Behind the Curve Because they are so focused on their industry they tend to be somewhat behind the curve, Hill said. Having been burnt in the downturn, they tend to be too cautious in predicting an upswing. That's what happened in November 1982, when an Industry Week magazine survey of 813 chief executives found 23 percent reported improving sales. I just don't see what's going to lead to any higher growth and bring us out of this, Paul Elicker, then-chairman of SCM Corp., told the magazine. November was the month the 1981-82 recession ended, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the unofficial arbiter of U.S. business cycles. SCM was taken over by Hanson Plc in 1985. The last recession ended in March 1991, according to the economists group. Ten months later, in January 1992, executives still weren't optimistic. Searching for Signs I don't see any signs the recession is easing, Ken Olsen, then-president of Digital Equipment Corp., said in the Jan. 6, 1992, edition of Electronic News. Compaq Computer Corp. bought Digital in 1998. John Hartley, then-chairman and chief executive officer of communications equipment manufacturer Harris Corp., told the same publication that while he'd like to believe the recession was over, the recovery, when and if it starts, will be slow gathering steam. The economy grew at a 3.8 percent annual rate in the first and second quarters of 1992 and at a 5.4 percent pace in the fourth. A December 1992 survey of chief executives at manufacturing companies with sales between $10 million and $500 million found 12 percent of company executives thought the economy was recovering. The executives weren't just being downbeat by nature. Average earnings for companies in the SP 500 stock index were 21.8 percent lower in the first quarter of 1991 than in the same period a year earlier. Earnings fell 24.2 percent in the second quarter, and 17.9 percent in the third. Falling Earnings In the fourth quarter of last year, earnings were 23.6 percent lower than in the same quarter of 2000. On Tuesday, Wal- Mart Chief Financial Officer Thomas Schoewe cautioned against reading too much into a 9.2 percent increase in fiscal fourth- quarter profit at the world's largest company. The evidence wasn't strong enough for us to believe that our economy has turned the corner, Schoewe said. Wal-Mart was only the latest to hedge its outlook. Alexander Cutler, Eaton's chairman and chief executive officer, last month forecast a very gradual and slow recovery late in the year. John Chambers, chief executive officer at Cisco Systems Inc., told investors Feb. 6 that he hears much the same when he talks to customers of the largest maker of computer-networking equipment. While most of the economists we talk with view the economy as starting to turn, many of the CEO's view it as having reached of a plateau, Chambers said. Fed Officials Fed officials say they aren't concerned about the gloomy boardroom outlook. It would probably take a lot of guts, maybe more guts than conviction, to make a different kind of statement, Stern said. I'd rather surprise people on the upside, if I were them, than surprise them on the downside.
BLS Daily Report, Friday Feb. 22
RELEASED TODAY: Annual average unemployment rates rose in more than half the states in 2001 for the first time since 1992, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The four census regions and nine geographical divisions all recorded rate increases. Employment-population ratios declined in 38 states and the District of Columbia. At the national level, the annual average jobless rate rose from 4.0 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent in 2001, and the employment-population ratio decreased by 0.7 percentage point to 63.8 percent. New claims for unemployment insurance benefits for the week ending Feb. 16 totaled 383,000, an increase of 10,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 373,000, the Employment and Training Administration reports. The less volatile, more closely watched four-week moving average increased 5,750 to 381,750 for the period ended Feb. 16, from the previous week's revised average of 376,000, ETA said (Daily Labor Report, page D-8). The index of leading economic indicators increased in January for the fourth consecutive month, suggesting that the recession may be ending. The 0.6 percent increase follows a revised 1.3 percent rise in December, according to the Conference Board, a New York-based research organization (Daily Labor Report, page D-11). The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services narrowed by 11.4 percent in December as exports edged up and imports declined, the Commerce Department reported Feb. 21 (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). A drop in imports helped cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline by $3.3 billion in December, to $25.3 billion, the Commerce Department said. The deficit was significantly less than department economists had assumed when they estimated that the economy grew at a meager 0.2 percent annual rate during the final three months of 2001. A number of analysts said the trade figure, coupled with other new data, means Commerce is likely to revise its estimate upward to 1 percent or better (The Washington Post, page E2). Despite growing signs that the economy is in recovery mode, the jobs pool continues to shrink and unemployed workers are exhausting jobless benefits in numbers not seen since the early 1970sAs the unemployment rolls grow, so do the number of workers who have collected unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, the limit on eligibility. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, estimates that nearly 81,000 workers are exhausting their benefits every week (The Wall Street Journal, page A2). A survey released by the National Association of Manufacturers found that 45 percent of its members expected to increase their capital spending in the first half of this year by as much as 5 percent, while 38 percent said they anticipated a continued decline in capital spending. The outlook for unemployment remains muddled. The unemployment rate has historically continued to rise for some months after a recession; after the last recession ended in March 1991, unemployment drifted up for 15 months, to 7.8 percent from 6.8 percent. The rate is now 5.6 percent. Some economists said the rate was likely to hit 6.5 percent before falling. Others said it would not rise much more. application/ms-tnef
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
Are you saying that Enron was in the God marketing biz? Paul Phillips wrote: Actually, neoclassical general equilibrium economists have proved that God exists. The tatonnement auctioneer! All knowing, capable of millions of decisions instantaniously, does not need to be paid to exist, and able to determine the future in perpetuity. Sounds like God to me. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century. Sam Webb Communism and history. Everyone familiar with the methodology of Marx that allowed him to formulate the thesis concerning the science of society traveled an individual path to arrive at his or her particular point of view. Most people I have met in life interested in and supportive of the writing of Marx expressed a deep compassion for the plight of their fellow human being and utilize the method of Marx to make sense of what appeared to be a chaotic world - at least for me. Our home was always agitated with lively debate about politics and race and much of this had to do with dad having hand built a stereo system - vacuum tubes and all, in the late 1950s and early 60s and had made a decision to get into the skilled trades as an electrician at the Ford Motor Company. Father had fought in the Philippines - one moment on the side of the "Huks" (the communist) and with a change in government policy, against the "Huks," and in the post Second Imperialist War atmosphere of America, grasped the logic of the reform movement opened on the basis of restructuring industrial relations and promoting Civil Rights. Our residency was the Jefferies Project in Detroit, one of the first major government sponsored housing projects in America, dedicated at its opening by Eleanor Roosevelt and a testimony to the efforts of the Roosevelt Coalition to stabilize class relations in America. American capital was poised to dominate the world through the rebuilding of Europe, the reformulation of monetary policy by way of the Bretton Wood Agreement and the dismantling of the colonial world structure that inhibited the flow of capital. The need to reformulate the social contract between owners of property and broad section of the laboring class was the necessary ingredient to stabilize the productive forces and allow the US to assume world leadership in opposition to Soviet Power. It was if the workingman had found a friend in Roosevelt. Well, much water has passed under the bridge and one can assess the waves of change in retrospect. Roosevelt and Hitler came to power at roughly the same time and it became apparent to "our" imperialism that Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism entailed colonialization of Eastern Europe. Wall Street had profound feeling about this matter, in as much as the areas coal fields, budding oil field and municipal bonds - and other investments, was owned by some of Wall Street and Roosevelt was the representative of financial capital - Wall Street. Back then the Democrats were the reactionary party of the Solid South and had no mass base North or South. The A f of L was securely tied to the Republicans. The mass vote of Roosevelt in 1932 was a repudiation of the starvation policy of Hoover and the depression. Roosevelt had to construct a mass base for the Democratic Party, stop Hitler re- division of the world and Wall Streets money as a basis to pull the economy out of crisis or experience World War 1 on a higher level. Without question the communist and revolutionary forces in America were desperately mobilizing the masses in the fight for food, shelter and clothing - and the communist fought extremely hard and were making headway and the masses were responding. The victories of social security, unemployment compensation, social welfare, the youth act, old age pensions, etc. were the compromise Wall Street Democrats were prepared to make to build a mass base, stave off the reemergence of crisis, defeat Hitler and push the quantitative boundary of the system. It appeared to the communist that the mass movement forced Roosevelt into its camp. The CIO (Committee of Industrial Organization) could not have been built the way it was unless a strong section of capital and the administration agreed with such building. By the time Earl Browder - then head of the CPUSA, had his famous dinner with Roosevelt the communist felt they had a secret ally in Roosevelt or he had been won over to their position. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died and proved the Shakespeare wasn't totally correct. Here the good of the man lived after his death and the evil was interned with his bones. To this day a section of our comrades cling to the most subjective and personalized view of history, as if the death of Roosevelt meant the death of the Roosevelt Coalition and all that is need is another Roosevelt to overpower the "ultra-right." The Roosevelt Coalition served its purpose and politics transformed on the basis of the completion of the quantitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure. This of course meant completing the mechanization of agriculture and consolidating
RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
Max, I don't understand your point. It sounds like PK is leaning in the EPI direction on this one. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23076] RE: Krugman Komes Around Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
no i meant you weren' t the only one w/claims to pre-K vision. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 5:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:23086] RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around Max, I don't understand your point. It sounds like PK is leaning in the EPI direction on this one. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23076] RE: Krugman Komes Around Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
I'll have to call my lawyer and cancel the lawsuit... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23087] RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around no i meant you weren' t the only one w/claims to pre-K vision. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 5:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:23086] RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around Max, I don't understand your point. It sounds like PK is leaning in the EPI direction on this one. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23076] RE: Krugman Komes Around Not so fast Sparky. http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib175.html http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/econindicators/jobspict.html http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp121.html mbs [Maybe I should sue because of violation of my intellectual property rights (see http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/jdevine/talks/ESTalk020502.htm) ;-) ... still, this is a pretty good article.] The W Scenario By PAUL KRUGMAN First comes the victory parade. Later we'll find out if we won.
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23088] RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around I'll have to call my lawyer and cancel the lawsuit... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine == That'll be $8million please. Enron Bankruptcy Lawyers' Bill: $8 Million By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 22, 2002; Page E04 In every scandal, there are winners and losers. The lawyers usually are among the winners. Consider U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, where Enron Corp.'s law firms filed more than $8 million worth of bills for their first month on the job. Weil, Gotshal Manges, Enron's lead lawyers in the bankruptcy reorganization, asked for $5.4 million for their services in December. The figure includes $3 million in lawyers' time -- including $700 an hour for senior partner Ira Millstein and $685 an hour for partners Greg Danilow and Martin Bienenstock -- $169,883 for copying and $89,799 for computer research, according to court documents the law firm filed filed Wednesday. Andrews Kurth, another firm representing the debtors, requested $1.54 million in fees and $78,838 in expenses. Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft of New York asked for $237,734. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae racked up $650,000 in lawyer and paralegal time and $56,000 in expenses. And Togut, Segal Segal sought $208,829 in fees and another $36,241 in expenses. The lawyers weren't the only ones lining up this week. Ernst Young Corporate Finance LLC charged $586,609 for providing restructuring advice from December to late January. No word yet on when Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez will review the bills.
Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or acombinati on of the above
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was raised as a Unitarian, a faith that believes that there exists at most one god (and argues about whether or not to capitalize). So my question: is why believe in the existence or non-existence of god?[*] why not simply express ignorance on this question? Why not indeed! One of the things I find most annoying about religion is each faith's insistence: (a) that G/god is ultimately unknowable, and (b) that it, as a particular faith, knows perfectly well what G/god is and what G/god wants. So much avoidable agony has resulted throughout history because of these preposterous claims to certain knowledge of a subject that is, by definition, beyond understanding. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
new cpi
I had not heard about the new cpi method that is about to be used. I just saw the notice in yesterday's WSJ. Has this been totally off the radar screen? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above
- Original Message - From: Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23090] Re: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods, goddesses, or a combinati on of the above From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was raised as a Unitarian, a faith that believes that there exists at most one god (and argues about whether or not to capitalize). So my question: is why believe in the existence or non-existence of god?[*] why not simply express ignorance on this question? Why not indeed! One of the things I find most annoying about religion is each faith's insistence: (a) that G/god is ultimately unknowable, and (b) that it, as a particular faith, knows perfectly well what G/god is and what G/god wants. So much avoidable agony has resulted throughout history because of these preposterous claims to certain knowledge of a subject that is, by definition, beyond understanding. Carl === Lest we forget, science inherited this notion and has gotten one hell of a lot mileage out of it. G/god as ultimate guarantor of the intelligibility/knowability of the world. Schrodinger, Einstein, Whitehead, Cantor and Godel made the issues involved over the signifier damn complicated . Ian
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
Is someone suing Krugman for writing a puff-piece about Enron? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine That'll be $8million please. Enron Bankruptcy Lawyers' Bill: $8 Million By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 22, 2002; Page E04 In every scandal, there are winners and losers. The lawyers usually are among the winners. Consider U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, where Enron Corp.'s law firms filed more than $8 million worth of bills for their first month on the job. Weil, Gotshal Manges, Enron's lead lawyers in the bankruptcy reorganization, asked for $5.4 million for their services in December. The figure includes $3 million in lawyers' time -- including $700 an hour for senior partner Ira Millstein and $685 an hour for partners Greg Danilow and Martin Bienenstock -- $169,883 for copying and $89,799 for computer research, according to court documents the law firm filed filed Wednesday. Andrews Kurth, another firm representing the debtors, requested $1.54 million in fees and $78,838 in expenses. Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft of New York asked for $237,734. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae racked up $650,000 in lawyer and paralegal time and $56,000 in expenses. And Togut, Segal Segal sought $208,829 in fees and another $36,241 in expenses. The lawyers weren't the only ones lining up this week. Ernst Young Corporate Finance LLC charged $586,609 for providing restructuring advice from December to late January. No word yet on when Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez will review the bills.
transformation tsurris.
[was RE: [PEN-L:23070] Re: On the necessity of socialism] I'm very tired, so I can't think about concrete/empirical stuff. So... Gil writes:Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). The problem is one of disaggregation or one of moving from a high level of abstraction to a lower one. Unlike modern orthodox economics which starts with so-called microfoundations and tries to explain all macro phenomena, Marx started (in volume I) with macro issues, the conflict in production between abstract capital and abstract labor (since he abstracts from the use-value of all commodities except labor-power) on the level of capitalist society as a whole. That is, he uses his law of value to break through the confusions implied by commodity production, i.e., the fetishism of commodities, to focus on what he thought was most important, the societal capital/labor relationship _in general_. This abstraction means that he actively ignores -- abstracts from -- differences amongst heterogeneous capitals, including the technical differences such as those represented by the organic composition of capital and social differences such as those represented by the rate of surplus-value, so that prices and values are proportional (as this literature notes). In other words, he starts with the average capitalist exploiting the average worker. (Unfortunately, rather than explaining this clearly, he simply uses the 19th century British cotton textile industry as representing the average. That's confusing, since it probably wasn't the average industry.) At this level, we see the general conditions of the class struggle determining the rate of surplus-value and the mass of surplus-value. (General conditions of class struggle in turn depend on the rate of accumulation, political institutions, etc., which in turn depend on previous conditions of the class struggle, which in turn depend on ... a long historical process.) In volume III, he moves away from the macro level to address the issues how the participants in the capitalist system see things and respond (microfoundations) so that suddenly issues like supply and demand become relevant (having been irrelevant at the volume I level of abstraction). The so-called transformation problem is about the distribution of value among the sellers of commodities with heterogeneous use-values and the distribution of surplus-value among capitalists with heterogeneous technical conditions and social roles (and degrees of exploitation, though that's not his emphasis). (Values and prices also differ because there is exploitation: a simple way to get values and prices to equal in the standard mechanical vision of the transformation problem is to assume that the rate of surplus-value = 0.) Gil is absolutely right that the key issue is whether or not aggregate prices [i.e., nominal national income] equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits [i.e., nominal property income]. However, grammatical parallelism says the issue is whether or not aggregate values equals the sum of prices and aggregate surplus-value equals the sum of property incomes. This reading from value quantities to prices fits with Marx's emphasis on the macro-determination of micro-results, i.e., that the context set by capitalist class relations shapes and limits all of the things we puny individuals do on the micro level. (Marx did not put enough emphasis on the feed-back from the micro-level back to the macro-level for my taste, but maybe he was overcompensating for the excessive individualism of his contemporaries doing political economy.) Of course, these pairs (values, prices; surplus-value, property income) have to be measured in the same units if equality is to be even conceivable. Let's measure them in value terms (i.e., measured in terms of socially-necessary abstract labor time). On the first, Marx made the distinction between values and exchange-values (though he assumed these to be equal in volume I). The values of commodities represent workers' contributions to society's pool of value, whereas exchange-values (prices stated in value terms) represent how the commodity-sellers are rewarded from that pool. It's like Dobb's distinction between the two labor theories of value that Adam Smith employed, i.e., how much labor it took to produce something and how much labor a commodity's sale could command. This distinction suggests that there's a clear relationship between values and exchange values (related to prices) on the macro-societal level: the total amount of exchange-values (exchange-value times quantity of output added up for all of society) should equal
Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 3:52 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23093] RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: Krugman Komes Around Is someone suing Krugman for writing a puff-piece about Enron? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine If the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory is true, yes. ;-) Ian
Re: new cpi
Michael Perelman wrote: I had not heard about the new cpi method that is about to be used. I just saw the notice in yesterday's WSJ. Has this been totally off the radar screen? It's been clear for a long time that the BLS has largely gone along with the Boskin stuff, despite protestations of independence. Incrementally, in technical changes. They're getting there, just a few adjustments more. They probably have to, because Congress wants it, and Congress sets their budget. Conceptually the new technique is supposed to compensate for substitution. But if you love Washington merlot but its price goes up by 25% so you switch to Budweiser, aren't you suffering a loss of welfare? Why should a price index write that out? Doug
China leads as Asian advertising defies downturn
The Times of India FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2002 China leads as Asian advertising defies downturn AFP SINGAPORE: China, Asia's largest consumer market, defied the effects of a global recession by posting stronger-than-expected advertising growth in 2001, according to a regional survey released on Friday. But there was a sharp split in the Asia-Pacific region between a China-led group of countries, which saw increased advertising, and a second group headed by Australia which was hit hard by the economic downturn, ACNielsen Media International said. The media research and analysis company said there were signs of a full recovery in 2002, but traditional outlets such as newspapers were not likely to benefit. China attracted the highest advertising spend of $11.2 billion in 2001, up 16 per cent on 2000. Indonesia, experiencing a year of relative political and economic stability, saw a return of consumer confidence resulting in a 28 per cent increase in ad spending to $920 million. The Philippines also posted double-digit growth with $1.4 billion in advertising representing a 14 per cent increase. Growth in the leading regional markets was driven by increased spending from the fast-moving consumer goods sector (FMCG), the report said. Asia Pacific markets less dependent on the US economy managed to sustain strong advertising expenditure growth rates in 2001, the regional managing director for ACNielsen, Forrest Didier, said. For the first time we saw local FMCG brands and advertisers playing a prominent role in several key markets such as Indonesia and the Philippines, while in China local advertisers continued their domination. The global slowdown took its toll elsewhere in the region, however, with Australia generating $2.9 billion in advertising, down 11 per cent, and Taiwan retreating 7.6 per cent to $6.4 billion. While many markets suffered sharp advertising cutbacks in 2001, a number of signs point to an economic recovery and a return to pre-recession ad spending levels by the end of 2002, Didier said The recovery would be spurred by several world sports events in the region including the co-hosting of the football World Cup by Japan and Korea, international cricket in India and the America's Cup yachting series in New Zealand. In 2001, the print media suffered sharp decreases in many regional markets as companies turned more to outdoor advertising and other non-traditional outlets. The weakening economy forced advertisers to seek alternative and less expensive forms of advertising last year and the trend toward increased outdoor advertising is expected to continue in 2002, Didier said. In particular, we are seeing a trend toward more advertising on public transport in urban centres -- most notably in Hong Kong and Thailand. The only noticeable impact of the September 11 terrorist strikes on regional advertising was in Hong Kong, where travel agencies and airlines increased spending in a concerted effort to boost overseas travel at Christmas, according to the report. In China, tonics and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals accounted for eight of the top 10 most advertised products, while pharmaceuticals ranging from brain pills to slimming powders were among the most popular products in Hong Kong. Telecommunications remained one of the region's leading ad-spend categories, particularly in South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore. Copyright © 2001 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
Re: Krugman Komes Around
Doug wrote: Devine, James wrote: Of course, we also have to remember Sabri's L scenario. Hey, if we're talking intellectual property, this is what I wrote last May. Friends, I have not paid any attention to PEN-L until late in the afternoon and look what happened. It is not good to talk behind people's backs, you know? I am against intellectual property rights, in case you don't know. Sabri
RE: Re: new cpi
Michael Perelman writes: I had not heard about the new cpi method that is about to be used. I just saw the notice in yesterday's WSJ. Has this been totally off the radar screen? Doug writes: It's been clear for a long time that the BLS has largely gone along with the Boskin stuff, despite protestations of independence. Incrementally, in technical changes. They're getting there, just a few adjustments more. They probably have to, because Congress wants it, and Congress sets their budget. Conceptually the new technique is supposed to compensate for substitution. But if you love Washington merlot but its price goes up by 25% so you switch to Budweiser, aren't you suffering a loss of welfare? Why should a price index write that out? -- there's a lot of potential here: the price of Prozac goes up so you substitute booze for it. Obviously, there's no loss of welfare, so the CPI should write that out, too. JD
Study of Wealth Inequality in Canada 1984-1999
Statistics Canada has a free study in PDF format at: There has been a dramatic decrease of 30% in the net worth of younger families during this period among other things. Many young families apparently carry huge debt loads. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE01187.pdf Cheers Ken Hanly
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
I thought Time played that role in the Timeworks philosophy. By the way God is a noun-- sharing this grammatical feature with Time But perhaps this is part of your humor or animal spirits. I dont know. Where is the commandment laid down that a noun must have a definite or indefinite article accompanying it? I assume you mean to be goofy. While it is ungrammatical to put a definite article with a pronoun even if before the pronoun rather than after it as you do, but on the contrary it is not ungrammatical to place definite articles before abstract nouns such as truth goodness, virtue etc even though they can stand on their own without articles. So what on earth is ungrammatical about putting a or the before God. A he is usually male by the way... Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:24 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23057] Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar Sabri Oncu wrote, Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism 2
A New Era - A New Doctrine II The teaching of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is all-powerful because it is true. Marx was a genius because he was able before anyone else to abstract from all the writings of history the law system that governed changes in society. Using the law system he discovered, Marx shifted through a mass of data concerning the fact of economic and social development and elaborated the conclusion into the doctrine of the class struggle. People always were and always will be the victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics, as long as they have not learned to discover the interests of one or another of the classes behind any moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Virtually every adult in America understands that we are living in an era of revolution and the revolution is in the economy as expressed in the technology and revolutionizing of all kinds of social products and services. What everyone in society recognizes as revolutionary is a qualitatively new technology that alters all social relationships. The way we communicate with one another is changed forever and continues to change; the way we pay our bills, shop, secure information, go to the movies and purchase tickets, drive our vehicles, cash weekly checks or deposit it into banking accounts, secure education, interact with television, play recording devices and listen to music - everything is being revolutionized and people already know this. The revolution has entered a stage where people begin to fight out the social question posed by the economy revolution. This developing fight to formulate what is wrong in society cannot mature without a cause, a morality and a vision. During the last reform movement within capital, the Civil Rights Movement, there was a cause, a morality and a vision. The vision of a genuine system of justice and equality for all was the cause that excited deep passion throughout every sector of society because it conformed to a general morality that say it is honorable to be fair. One hundred years before the Civil Rights movement the struggle to preserve the Union birthed the cause of ending human slavery. That cause became the foundation of a vision of a new world of human freedom. One Hundred years earlier the cause of national independence - self-determination, united the scattered and contradictory forces around a program of Independence and ushered in 1776. It is the striving of our diverse peoples for a higher vision that demands formulating the righteous cause that can inspire them to unbelievable heights. Lurking beneath the morality of fairness is always class interest, however the vision that inspired was the striving for a better and just world. The cause today is slowly emerging into view - the distribution of the wealth of society according to need. The vision is of a world without human suffering based on want, without race and national hatred, without sexual oppression and human exploitation, a world where an ever expanding technology delivers fuller lives for all, materially, culturally and spiritually in a safe and healthy environment. The historical record clearly proves that it was Marx to first formulate the vision of the new world and this was not a vision called socialism but from each according to his ability, to each according to their need. Trying to take socialism to the working class is useless for several reasons. One important reason is that the process of the decay of capital does not take place on the basis of a general collapse of the system where everything stops working at one time but rather on the basis of the polarization of society into two hostile camps; wealth and poverty. This polarization splits the working class into two hostile camps. One camp is absolutely dependent upon imperialism for its privilege position relative to the other sector of the class. The other sector of the working class faces the razor edge of capital with its standard of living slowly sinking lower and lower, while its rank slowly but consistently grows larger. This process is underway in all countries on earth and in this sense is historic and develops with its own uniqueness in every country. The more stable section of the working class has no interest in socialism, but rather the stability of employment and preservation of its relatively high wages - compared to the bottom. This desire does not prevent large sections of skilled and white-collar workers from being pushed into the lower sectors of the working class. The lower and most destitute sector of the working class has no interest in socialism because it is driven on the basis of its needs - I need this, that and the other. Then of course the banner of socialism was a banner in a historical period of time that no longer exists. Socialism has already defined itself on earth and before the collapse of Soviet
RE: Re: new cpi
RE It's been clear for a long time that the BLS has largely gone along with the Boskin stuff . . . I imagine that the behavior of the BLS towards revising (sic) the CPI changed once Katherine Abraham left as head of the BLS. Her term expired in about September 2001. I bet no one in the administration wanted to offer her a new term. She was a strong advocate against mindlessly changing the CPI methdology. Eric .
Re: Marx's Capital manuscript
In a message dated 2/21/2002 3:10:30 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I present summary of article “Engels’ Edition of the Third Volume of Capital and Marx's original Manuscript”by Michael Heinrich in “ScienceSociety” Vol. 60 no.4(1996-1997;TheGuilford Press) In fear of warping, I attach my original paper. He point out that in 1993, Marx's manuscript of 1864-65, used by Engels as the basis for Volume? of capital, became available as Part of New MEGA. And he analyzes this manuscript compared with forth edition. Although Engels wrote” I tried my best to preserve the character of the first draft whenever it was sufficiently clear,” there are large number of transpositions, additions, contractions, and alteration. 1. In overview of Engels’ Textual Modification, He summarize the “modification” into 6 points. a. Design of titles and headings Engels turned the title From “ Gestaltungen des Gesasamptproyesses (Formations of the Process as a Whole) into “Der Gesamptprozess der Kapitalistischen Produktion (The Process of Capitalist Production as a whole). I think probably that Marx wanted to describe from essence of capital to appearance form of capital, but In Engels edition, this point became obscure. Engels also made a detailed segmentation of the text. The original manuscript was divided into only seven chapters with few or no subdivisions. Engels turned the seven chapters into seven parts with 52 chapters and a number of subparagraphs. Marx's text consists of 34 headings (and five construction points which are only numbered), while Engels’ edition contain 92 headings. By putting this material together into chapters and inserting headings, this draft character is concealed. The reader can no longer tell at what point in the manuscript” “presentation” turns into“ inquiry” The difference between presentation and inquiry is of central importance for Marx's own methodological understanding. To Marx “presentation” does not just mean the moire´ or less skillful assembly of final results. The factual correlation of the conditions presented should be expressed by the correct presentation of the categories, by” advancing from the abstract to the concrete.” To Marx, the search for an adequate presentation is an essential part of his process of inquiry. But this difference is concealed by Engels. Additionally, Engels tried to strengthen the coherence of the text, so readers do not learn that a large part of Marx’ manuscript is open and undecided. I find your comment on the translation of Capital By Engels excellent and remarkably good. I had difficulty understanding the initial presentation of the question and the emphasis on "shape of capitalist production." You have cleared up this distinction for me. Reading Marx Capital as the shape of a system of production at a certain stage and within certain quantitative boundaries is different from accepting "shape" as the "final" totality of process. I have read your comment three times and in all honesty will have to reread them 10-15 times and then reread major portions of capital for my own clarity. Before now I have never really grasped the logic of distinction concerning the crisis of overproduction, - raised by various members of this community, although I have a conception that the "crisis element does not originate" in the "Law of the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall," but rather the private ownership of the properties that constitute the infrastructure and its production process. My concept has been that of private individuals driven to revolutionize production, in competition with other manufacturing the same or similar products, without regard to the internal barrier of the market as expressed in the purchasing power of the mass at a given time. I have no ego invested in this proposition, rather it is an understanding that may be more or less absurd than what Marx meant. I have never advanced to a comprehensive study or understanding of credit and now have incentive to pursue this matter as a discipline. I simply must reread what you have wrote many times over and am grateful. This shall keep me busy and excited for a while. Now I can't go to sleep. Great article. Melvin P.
cpi report
Maybe Dave Richardson has something to add. February 21, 2002 Labor Department to Publish A New Consumer Price Index New Measure Will Address Concerns That the CPI Is Overstating Inflation By GREG IP Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- The Labor Department will publish a new consumer price index beginning this summer to address some longstanding concerns that the current index overstates inflation. The new measure, called a superlative or chain consumer price index , is meant to better capture how consumers tend to shift purchases to products whose prices are falling in relative terms. It will supplement, but not replace, the current CPI, the most widely used measure of how a household's cost of living changes over time, the Labor Department said Wednesday. Bureau of Labor Statistics research suggests annual inflation would be 0.1 to 0.2 percentage point lower measured with the new index. Many academics and some policy makers, such as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, have argued that the CPI overstates the change in the cost of living for several reasons. The reasons include inadequate adjustment for improved quality, the introduction of new products, the trend toward lower-price stores and the tendency to buy more of products that are getting cheaper, and less of those getting more expensive. The new chain CPI, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics will begin publishing with July's data in August, addresses this last factor, so-called substitution bias. For example, if the price of cigarettes rose sharply between 1998 and 2002 while the price of cellphone services fell, people in 2002 would probably smoke less and talk more on their cellphones. Using a 1998 basket of goods and services -- an estimate of how a typical household spends its budget -- would overstate the significance of rising cigarette prices and understate the significance of falling cellular charges in 2002, thus overstating inflation. The new index employs a formula to adjust for the change in spending weights. CPI measurement has been a hot political topic in the past because it is used by the government to index things like Social Security benefits and income-tax brackets, and is also widely used in private contracts, such as union agreements, for cost-of-living adjustment clauses. In 1996, a commission headed by Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the first President Bush, concluded that the CPI overstated inflation by 1.1 percentage points a year. Among other recommendations, the commission urged that the CPI be modified to correct for substitution bias. Despite its analytical advantages, the new CPI might not be a suitable replacement for the regular CPI for contractual cost-of-living calculations. Because of the lags in obtaining updated expenditure weights, the chain CPI will be revised regularly, a fact that would complicate contracts. The regular CPI is never revised, except for seasonal-adjustment factors. There might also be political difficulties. The Social Security Administration by law must index benefits using the current CPI. At present, even the regular CPI suggests inflation pressure is dormant. The Labor Department said Wednesday that the index rose 0.2% in January from December as rising gasoline prices were offset by drops in clothing costs. Excluding the volatile food and energy components, the so-called core CPI was also up just 0.2%. But in the next year or two, as the economy recovers and concerns rise over a return of inflationary pressure that could force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, measurement issues will become more significant. The BLS has modified the CPI since the Boskin commission issued its report. A study last year by Federal Reserve Board researchers David Lebow and Jeremy Rudd concluded that the CPI now overstated the annual change in the cost of living by a lesser, though still significant, 0.6
Re: e: on the necessity of god, goddess, gods,goddesses,....
Greetings Economists, Tom writes about the value of knowing one way (believing in religion) or the other (being an atheist not believing there is a god) about God. -- Tom 22 February 2002 21:19 UTC quotes, Jim Devine wrote, As far as I can tell, there's no logical argument either for or against the existence of god. Tom replies to the above, I agree absolutely there's no logical argument for or against. My own position is based entirely and radically on grammar. Tom Walker -- Doyle The basic argument for religious belief is that one is aware of the 'spirit' in being, or 'like' descriptions of a mind outside human beings. An atheist says there was no soul there in the first place to situate the argument about how a human being really thinks. The atheist seeks to understand what happens when someone really dies. If it were entirely un-important to not know the difference and that one belief is the same as the other, then neuroscience would be cluttered with various attempts to find the soul. Perhaps George W (the Christian) will tell us why U.S. science is so un-Christian to not be focused on the search for a soul. Tom may argue that 'believing' is the issue as a formula like activity resembling a grammar. The word, God, in Tom's view is a peculiarly empty word. For Tom God appears as just a place holder in a grammatical structure that describes an arbitrary belief. While the emptiness of the concept comes through from Tom's remark, that also misses some important elements in religion. Religion is not just belief, Religion is an explanation. An explanation is a product of an activity of the mind in which one person tells another person what they think is the meaning of something. As I am saying above god is a mind which someone tells another person they know about as god. That mind (god) is some place besides in a human head. Or if in an human head, the immortal non material aspect of the person God/King God/head. For an atheist in this contemporary time, I can't see a lot of difference between the religious explanation (as a human being conveys it to another) and having an avatar (a figure representing a human face) pop up when the atheist comes to the rock on the hill, and give the atheist an explanation of the rock. See The Dream Drugstore, Chemically Altered States of Consciousness, J. Allan Hobson, MIT Press, 2001 The difference between my proposal and Tom's theory is that Tom asserts grammar is a meaningful way to convey belief in god (the word being empty), and I say explanation is. Explanation while not well understood in a scientific sense offers better grounds for understanding the mental processes underlying religion. Hence if one must feel there are parallels between two opposed belief systems, Atheist as true believers similar to the religious believers, then understanding how the mind produces explanation provides a more practical route to understanding the truth of the assertion. thanks, Doyle Saylor PS Tom is a wiseacre in starting this thread, and I recognize the difference in seriousness of his message and my own. Still the point he made is worthy of my attention in a serious manner anyway.
Re: Re: Marx's Capital manuscript
Title: Re: [PEN-L:23105] Re: Marx's Capital manuscript ON 2002.02.23 03:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] WROTE: IN A MESSAGE DATED 2/21/2002 3:10:30 PM CENTRAL STANDARD TIME, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WRITES: I PRESENT SUMMARY OF ARTICLE $B!H(JENGELS$B!G(J EDITION OF THE THIRD VOLUME OF CAPITAL AND MARX'S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT$B!I(JBY MICHAEL HEINRICH IN $B!H(JSCIENCESOCIETY$B!I(J VOL. 60 NO.4(1996-1997;THEGUILFORD PRESS) IN FEAR OF WARPING, I ATTACH MY ORIGINAL PAPER. HE POINT OUT THAT IN 1993, MARX'S MANUSCRIPT OF 1864-65, USED BY ENGELS AS THE BASIS FOR VOLUME? OF CAPITAL, BECAME AVAILABLE AS PART OF NEW MEGA. AND HE ANALYZES THIS MANUSCRIPT COMPARED WITH FORTH EDITION. ALTHOUGH ENGELS WROTE$B!I(J I TRIED MY BEST TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE FIRST DRAFT WHENEVER IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR,$B!I(J THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSPOSITIONS, ADDITIONS, CONTRACTIONS, AND ALTERATION. 1. IN OVERVIEW OF ENGELS$B!G(J TEXTUAL MODIFICATION, HE SUMMARIZE THE $B!H(JMODIFICATION$B!I(J INTO 6 POINTS. A. DESIGN OF TITLES AND HEADINGS ENGELS TURNED THE TITLE FROM $B!H(J GESTALTUNGEN DES GESASAMPTPROYESSES (FORMATIONS OF THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE) INTO $B!H(JDER GESAMPTPROZESS DER KAPITALISTISCHEN PRODUKTION (THE PROCESS OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE). I THINK PROBABLY THAT MARX WANTED TO DESCRIBE FROM ESSENCE OF CAPITAL TO APPEARANCE FORM OF CAPITAL, BUT IN ENGELS EDITION, THIS POINT BECAME OBSCURE. ENGELS ALSO MADE A DETAILED SEGMENTATION OF THE TEXT. THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT WAS DIVIDED INTO ONLY SEVEN CHAPTERS WITH FEW OR NO SUBDIVISIONS. ENGELS TURNED THE SEVEN CHAPTERS INTO SEVEN PARTS WITH 52 CHAPTERS AND A NUMBER OF SUBPARAGRAPHS. MARX'S TEXT CONSISTS OF 34 HEADINGS (AND FIVE CONSTRUCTION POINTS WHICH ARE ONLY NUMBERED), WHILE ENGELS$B!G(J EDITION CONTAIN 92 HEADINGS. BY PUTTING THIS MATERIAL TOGETHER INTO CHAPTERS AND INSERTING HEADINGS, THIS DRAFT CHARACTER IS CONCEALED. THE READER CAN NO LONGER TELL AT WHAT POINT IN THE MANUSCRIPT$B!I(J $B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J TURNS INTO$B!H(J INQUIRY$B!I(J THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESENTATION AND INQUIRY IS OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE FOR MARX'S OWN METHODOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING. TO MARX $B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J DOES NOT JUST MEAN THE MOIRE$B!-(J OR LESS SKILLFUL ASSEMBLY OF FINAL RESULTS. THE FACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED SHOULD BE EXPRESSED BY THE CORRECT PRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORIES, BY$B!I(J ADVANCING FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE CONCRETE.$B!I(J TO MARX, THE SEARCH FOR AN ADEQUATE PRESENTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS PROCESS OF INQUIRY. BUT THIS DIFFERENCE IS CONCEALED BY ENGELS. ADDITIONALLY, ENGELS TRIED TO STRENGTHEN THE COHERENCE OF THE TEXT, SO READERS DO NOT LEARN THAT A LARGE PART OF MARX$B!G(J MANUSCRIPT IS OPEN AND UNDECIDED. I FIND YOUR COMMENT ON THE TRANSLATION OF CAPITAL BY ENGELS EXCELLENT AND REMARKABLY GOOD. I HAD DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THE QUESTION AND THE EMPHASIS ON SHAPE OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION. YOU HAVE CLEARED UP THIS DISTINCTION FOR ME. READING MARX CAPITAL AS THE SHAPE OF A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION AT A CERTAIN STAGE AND WITHIN CERTAIN QUANTITATIVE BOUNDARIES IS DIFFERENT FROM ACCEPTING SHAPE AS THE FINAL TOTALITY OF PROCESS. I HAVE READ YOUR COMMENT THREE TIMES AND IN ALL HONESTY WILL HAVE TO REREAD THEM 10-15 TIMES AND THEN REREAD MAJOR PORTIONS OF CAPITAL FOR MY OWN CLARITY. BEFORE NOW I HAVE NEVER REALLY GRASPED THE LOGIC OF DISTINCTION CONCERNING THE CRISIS OF OVERPRODUCTION, - RAISED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE A CONCEPTION THAT THE CRISIS ELEMENT DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN THE LAW OF THE TENDENCY OF THE RATE OF PROFIT TO FALL, BUT RATHER THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES THAT CONSTITUTE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS PRODUCTION PROCESS. MY CONCEPT HAS BEEN THAT OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DRIVEN TO REVOLUTIONIZE PRODUCTION, IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MANUFACTURING THE SAME OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INTERNAL BARRIER OF THE MARKET AS EXPRESSED IN THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE MASS AT A GIVEN TIME. I HAVE NO EGO INVESTED IN THIS PROPOSITION, RATHER IT IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT MAY BE MORE OR LESS ABSURD THAN WHAT MARX MEANT. I HAVE NEVER ADVANCED TO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING OF CREDIT AND NOW HAVE INCENTIVE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER AS A DISCIPLINE. I SIMPLY MUST REREAD WHAT YOU HAVE WROTE MANY TIMES OVER AND AM GRATEFUL. THIS SHALL KEEP ME BUSY AND EXCITED FOR A WHILE. NOW I CAN'T GO TO SLEEP. GREAT ARTICLE. MELVIN P. MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI PRE JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THANK YOU READING MY ARTICLE. But still there remains to decode and analyze manuscript of credit which Marx remained. Differing from Heinlich(he describe credit theory itself was beyond Marx's plan), we think it is possible credit theory which can go today from Marx's manuscript, and its work will be nearly accomplished. we will
