Apologies for OFFLIST re international income comparisons, etc
Sorry, egg on my face. At 12:04 PM 7/27/2004 -0400, you wrote: At 11:14 AM 7/27/2004 -0400, you wrote: In relation to questions raised by Paul on HDI, etc, a friend has directed me to a recent piece by Robert Wade in New Political Economy. I assume it's in the following issue: Thanks very much, I will look for it and will also try to comment a bit more in a couple of days. Did your friend have any other comments or views on the discussion - not many people follow this. Paul
FW: Value Theory Website: apologies for cross-posting
The website of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) has moved to www.iwgvt.org The site gives free access to over 150 papers on value theory and related topics covering eleven years of debates at IWGVT mini-conferences, held annually under the auspices of the Eastern Economic Association. Papers from two sessions of the Greenwich conferences on Critical Political Economy, and many guest papers, are also available. The IWGVT welcomes contributions and papers relevant to its aims and in conformity with its scholarship guidelines, both of which may be found on the site. We can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: apologies/colonial question
In a message dated 3/25/03 6:12:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When Iraq was first colonised by Britain in 1917, Iraqis were fed the same British propaganda about liberation through occupation. We fought the best part of last century to get rid of colonial Britain and, since then, have helped a great number of independence movements worldwide. Iraqis may wish for the current regime to change, but anyone who understands our culture will know that in this war Iraqis will fight and die, not to save President Saddam Hussein, but to protect their home, land, dignity and self-respect from a new world order alien to their way of life. We are an enormously proud people. Comment This question of the self-determination of nation's - in this instance Iraq, from the standpoint of Marxist theory, the doctrine of national development advanced by Marx and Engels, then reshaped in the hands of Lenin as the national-colonial question has undergone radical change in presentation. This question has been observed over a long period of time by generations of Marxist. Each generation is compelled by the logic of industrial development and changes in the form of financial imperial capital to reshape the presentation of the national colonial question based on the specific state of development of the material power of the productive forces. And also, the actual (not merely juridical) equalization of nations based on their standing in reference to the actual economic development of the imperial centers. Currently the world has been economically evened up. This does not mean every area of earth is in possession of identical means of production, but rather that every area of earth has been drawn into commodity production on the basis of a unified and interactive world infrastructure, on which sits the world distribution of the social product. These products are distributed based on possession of money. The world's people can only acquire money by working - selling their labor power. The technological revolution or the economic revolution makes this increasingly difficult for a widening scope of the world's people. A serious presentation and summation of the evolution of the national and then national-colonial question, from the standpoint of Marxism would require a small book running perhaps 40 pages. Without question the direct colonial system was absolutely defeated on a world scale as the result of and as a by-product of the Second imperial World War. The revolution in China and then the war of national liberation in Vietnam was highpoints in this process. This of course includes the hundreds of millions of slaves of imperialism throughout continental Africa and throughout Asia and Latin America. That is to say one can trace the national question and the question of the liberation of colonies from the American Revolution of 1776 up to the defeat of USNA imperial armed forces in Vietnam. No Marxist worth their salt can dispute that USNA imperialism is the international hangmen of the proletarian social revolution and the enemy of the majority of the people of earth. In the face of the impossible, our arrogant bourgeoisie seeks to preserve its privilege position and that of the Anglo-American working class as a social basis for imperial aggression. The representatives of our imperial bourgeoisie have to be elected and to be elected you must protect the livelihood of the people who can vote. The law of value and specifically the operation of the law that govern the organic composition of capital make it impossible to protect the livelihood of the working class. This law basically states that more and more advanced machinery will be added to the production process, eliminating huge sectors of human labor and compel the value system to change under the weight of destruction. Advanced robotics cannot engage in exchange or buy products. Advanced machines can replace the work that 50% of everyone in America and indeed the world do on a daily basis. Here is the essence of the economic revolution that drives the social revolution. Iraq is no longer a direct colony of any imperial power or what for another generation of Marxist was called a semi-colony or Neo colony. The imperialist bourgeoisie long ago adopted self-determination as a political slogan during the era of the first Imperial World War. The aggressive military assault on Iraq at the hands of USNA financial imperialism is not simply a question of the self-determination of the laboring masses of Iraq. How the masses in Iraq resist and fight imperial aggression has what is called a "national character." The "national character" cannot but involve the psychological make-up of the people of this territory and this most certainly includes spiritual longings and religious doctrine. National character is not simply a concept of territory and its economic evolution, but the way people think things out in a given territory, which embraces their hi
Re: apologies
>I am not trying to insult you by characterizing you, but to put my finger on a dilemma. I think it is related to something wrong in the way you approach the relationship between theory and practice . . . .The working people you talk with may be will not recognize the word "hegemony" but they will recognize an agitational equivalent of it. What is the US doing going round playing biggest kid on the block? What is it like for the supplies troops who have just been ambushed and interviewed on Iraqi television? What is it like for the black sergeant who threw grenades into tents in Camp Pennsylvania two nights ago? Why does CNN this morning still report his motivation as a mystery? >What are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they are doing policing the world? Why does someone like Akbar turn to a reactive ideology (I say reactive to avoid the dismissive connotations of reactionary, although it means the same literally) like being a Black Muslim. < Reply You are basically correct in putting your finger on the dilemma. The societal role of the US government, or rather multi-national state of the United States of North America, does not rivet on its bigness or playing the role of the biggest kid on the block. The role of the multi-national state of the United States of North America is fundamentally a question of conduct driven by property relations. The organ of violence in the hands of the historically evolved Anglo-American bourgeoisie is the international hangmen of revolution and the enemy of the peoples of earth. That is the point. Not hegemony or bigness but rather the rule of a class. >If you assume a mainly theoretical, pedagogical approach to politics, while this is not always wrong, you will not see that agitational work can provide a bridge between theory and practice, testing theory but also enriching it.< Reply I proceed from an assumption that there does not exist a "bridge between theory and practice," - as such, by definition. Practical politics deal with the doctrine of conducting the social struggle, not theory of social development. The doctrine of Marx and Lenin proceed from a different axis than the theory. Both require thinking but one must admit that Lenin's doctrine of the "party of a new type" does not arise from a fundamental analysis of commodity production. The party of a new type - the Leninist party, arose as a doctrine of the class struggle at a certain stage of evolution of the social struggle during the period of transition from agricultural to industrial relations. The question Lenin posed was how to create an organization of revolutionaries unified on the basis of seizing the state power - the civic authority. Theory is said to be the law system of unfolding development or a process. By definition this rivets on abstractions. For instance, there is the materialist conception of history, which is not practically related to the doctrine espousing the party of a new type, or the need at this juncture for a broad class party in America. It is interesting that you would raise the case of the solider involved in fragging and using the term "black Muslim" and "what are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they (US government) are doing policing the world?" Here the question of theory and doctrine becomes paramount. First of all the world is going to be policed as long as "the state" exists as a historically evolved social phenomenon. Theory informs me on this proposition. The feelings of blacks are almost identical to those sections of the Anglo-American people who occupy similar social positions in the working class. This can only be understood on the basis of history. There are variations but the black masses who are working class, not simply black, did not object to Clinton's bombing of black people in other parts of earth. Nor was there any registered outrage over Clinton's Eastern European policy by "black people" in America. It gets worse. Clinton's administration did more to hurt the mass of African Americans - by way of his welfare reform, than all the "reactionaries" over the past 30 years. Clinton was the African American people, "main man" in terms of the specifics of American Ideology and politics. My point is that your assertion is outside the indigenousness Marxism (Marx theory) that evolved in America, because it is classless. In terms of doctrine, the forms of oppression they have faced historically govern the national character of the African American peoples movement. Why millions of African Americans would reject the doctrine of Christianity is no surprise given the fact that Christians enslaved them as a people in America. I thought everyone on earth understood this. Now the question is not really why Blacks gravitate towards Islam, but the role of religion in social life. There is something to your brand of Marxist that caters to the bourgeoisie. I cannot be accused o
apologies
At 2003-03-22 13:27 -0500, you wrote: My passions will be my undoing. I can explain nothing on the basis of "hegemony" because that sector of the working class I interact with is driven differently. I should stay out of the continuing debate between you and Lou - both men of deep respect, that have been waged over the years. Sorry, Melvin P. I do not want to appear churlish by spurning apologies, but this does not feel quite right. Not just because you praise Louis Proyect and me in the same breath, which is even more embarrassing than being criticised together in the same breath. It is partly because the exchange of ideas and argument, so long as it is not abusive, is what gives an email list richness. It is also that I do not really agree with your explanation. At times you seem to teach, at times, you seem to have been influenced by valuable teachers. I am not trying to insult you by characterising you, but to put my finger on a dilemma. I think it is related to something wrong in the way you approach the relationship between theory and practice. Yes it is true that in a sense, as Lenin argued in What is to be done? ideas have to come to the working masses/class from outside. But fundamentally ideas are not purely abstract divorced from real material interests and class struggle. The working people you talk with may be will not recognise the word "hegemon" but they will recognise an agitational equivalent of it. What is the US doing going round playing biggest kid on the block? What is it like for the supplies troops who have just been ambushed and interviewed on Iraqi television? What is it like for the black sergeant who threw grenades into tents in Camp Pensylvania two nights ago? Why does CNN this morning still report his motivation as a mystery? What are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they are doing policing the world? Why does someone like Akbar turn to a reactive ideology (I say reactive to avoid the dismissive connotations of reactionary, although it means the same literally) like being a black muslim. If you assume a mainly theoretical, pedagogical approach to politics, while this is not always wrong, you will not see that agitational work can provide a bridge between theory and practice, testing theory but also enriching it. Now I may be teaching my grandfather to suck eggs, because email can create a strange sense of intimacy, when one only sees aspects of the other person, and sometimes they are our own aspects projected onto the other person at that. In another post your referred to your excess passion apologetically again and commented on the decisive thing in the fall of the Nazi army in front of Stalingrad: What was decisive about the battle for Stalingrad was that it was the turning point in preserving public property relations in the socially necessary means of production. Here my reaction is that I do not understand how you relate the abstract and the concrete. This feels to me like an abstract assertion without any obvious intervening concrete links with the complexity of what actually happened. I suspect that passion is not your undoing but that like all of us it is the contradiction between passion and intellect, which are dialectically related to one another in unity, as well as opposition. Most of us on these lists could be accused of just thinking and writing and doing little, so I do not want to ask an unfair question, but how do your personal passions relate to this present war, and then in turn with your theories. They may be valuable, and not something for which you should apologise. Also technically, as someone who writes excessively long contributions like yourself, they are not best designed to engage in dialogue. They have the merit of presenting a reasonably coherent case, which people cannot take cheap potshots at, and which as it were establish some intellectual territory. However they may often be skimmed over even by people who would otherwise be sympathetic. As we are at the end of the weekend I regret I will not be able to respond to your replies at any length. But if I have misunderstood our differences please accept my apologies in turn. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: [Fwd: Robert K. Merton, 1910-2003] -- apologies
I don't want to go through thsi again, but I have explained the differrence between functionalISM and functional EXPLANATION at several points on this and othyer lists; check the archives. As I said before, FE is not a general doctribe about the nature of society; it is a style of explanation of the sort you get in Darwinian adaptive explanations. Using it does not commit you to berlieving that God's in his his heaven and all's right with the word. It is comptaibler with the existence of antagonistic conflicts and social contradictions. For example, you can say that the the fact that the relations of prouction promote (are functional for) the forces of production expalins in part why you have those relations. I recall someone once said something like this. When talking about FE, bringing up F-ism is a total red herring. jks >Merton's output was . . . a fine theorist of functional explanation. < functionalism is pretty conservative, at least as practiced by Talcott Parsons, the (late) dean of functionalism. If I remember the article by Merton (and someone else), it fit this mold: it was about how social stratification was functional, i.e., serving the needs of society (without looking at how social stratification determines the official or dominant "needs of society") and how this functional role explained its existence. (Of course, some people think that Marx engaged in a (leftist) form of functionalism, but that's another story.) Jim Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: [Fwd: Robert K. Merton, 1910-2003] -- apologies
Title: Re: [Fwd: Robert K. Merton, 1910-2003] -- apologies STOP PRESS! apologies to the late prof. Merton. The article on stratification wasn't by him, but by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (American Sociological Review, 1945). Jim -Original Message- From: Devine, James To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: 2/24/2003 9:19 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35041] RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: [Fwd: Robert K. Merton, 1910-2003] >Merton's output was vast, and apart from On The Shoulders of Giants I mainly know his sociology of science stuff, which is apolitical, and some of his general theory -- he was a fine theorist of functional explanation. < functionalism is pretty conservative, at least as practiced by Talcott Parsons, the (late) dean of functionalism. If I remember the article by Merton (and someone else), it fit this mold: it was about how social stratification was functional, i.e., serving the needs of society (without looking at how social stratification determines the official or dominant "needs of society") and how this functional role explained its existence. (Of course, some people think that Marx engaged in a (leftist) form of functionalism, but that's another story.) Jim
Apologies
Dec. 14, 2002 PEN-L: My apologies for the 'Seth S.--Dec. 14' post reaching PEN-L. I sent it to Michael Perelman but somehow it bounced to the list. Strange. :-> Seth Sandronsky _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
RE: RE: Re: employment (apologies: long)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31157] RE: Re: employment (apologies: long) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- Daniel Davies writes: > ... My understanding of what the BLS unemployment rate is > meant to measure is this: it's meant to measure the number > of people who would be employed if the labour market were to clear at the current > prevailing wage rate, but who are not employed. It's a measure of labour > market disequilibrium. The BLS isn't thinking of the idea of market-clearing when they do surveys to figure out the unemployment rate. In theory, the labor-power markets are in macro-equilibrium (macro market clearing) when the number of unemployed workers equals the number of vacancies. The BLS doesn't measure the latter (so that economists have to use help-wanted ads and the like). This macro equilibrium coexists with micro-disequilibrium (non-clearing of markets), where there are unemployed workers and vacancies but the two can't get together. JD
Re: RE: Re: employment (apologies: long)
On 9 Oct 02, at 16:14, Davies, Daniel wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Jannuzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 October 2002 15:13 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:31148] Re: employment > > > >best you could say it was an argument from > >previously established authority > > Absolutely, because I have no real specialist knowledge of the subject of > unemployment statistics and no real prospect of having the time to get any. > But look at it this way: > > What's the knock-down argument to say that people who only skim want ads > *should* be counted as "actively looking for work"? I haven't heard it. > Same with the long term sick. I don't even understand the argument about > the unemployment rate which seems to be arguing that people who have jobs in > the armed services ought to be counted as unemployed. What I do know is > that there are a lot of people doing good, honest work on this subject, > trying to measure what effect various kinds of non-worker populations have > on the operations of the labour market, and that the most and the best of > them work for the BLS. So in the absence of anyone making a contrary > argument to me, I'm going to assume that the inclusion of these groups makes > the BLS number worse, rather than better, as a measurement of what it's > meant to measure. My understanding of what the BLS unemployment rate is > meant to measure is this: it's meant to measure the number of people who > would be employed if the labour market were to clear at the current > prevailing wage rate, but who are not employed. It's a measure of labour > market disequilibrium. > > There are, I think, two further important questions which arise from this, > and part of the reason why we're all talking past each other is that we're > taking these two questions out of order. The questions are: > > 1) Assuming that "unemployment" is used by the official statisticians to > measure the extent to which the labour market has failed to clear, should it > be measuring something else? > > and -- and this can most likely only be answered conditionally on a specific > answer to 1) above -- > > 2) Can adjustments be made to the official statistics in order to transform > the BLS number into something which works well as a measure of whatever it > is that the unemployment rate ought to be naming? > I am a little curious of how dd comes to the conclusion that BLS statistics are the best in the world and on what basis. They are perhaps the quickest to be published and perhaps the most voluminous but, if I remember correctly, there have been quite huge changes in recent months to growth and productivity measures due to statistical revisions and the reason given was the rush to get the data out means that the input figures to the statistics are themselves preliminary and subject to adjustment. One result of such a revision was a drastic fall in the rate of productivity growth in the latter 1990s which contradicted the assertion of a 'new economy.' In any case, a little nationalism here, I believe the UN system of national accounting was adopted from that developed by Statistics Canada at the end of the 2nd WW, because of the quality of the Canadian statistical services. Indeed, I use Stats Canada statistics a lot and though I often curse them because of changes in definitions etc. their quality is excellent and they always give full details of how each are collected and the margins of error etc. I am not sure that the US stats are any better and, given their speed of release, unrevised US data may be less reliable than that available from stodgy Statscan. They also publish quarterly a journal "Perspectives on Labour and Income" which does in depth studies of such things as unemployment exploring all the variables that we have discussed on this thread and incorporating a lot of statistics that are otherwise not reported -- including stuff on the quality of jobs and what people do with their 'leisure;' also on the grey economy and so on. This raises a second point. Some economists measure macroeconomic unemployment not by the unemployment rate, but by the employment rate and its divergence from the potential employment rate. Just recently I saw graphs (I don't remember where) showing the divergence of US employment rates over the last ten years from the long term trend. What they showed was not a large rise in unemployment, but rather a sharp drop in the employment rate coinciding with the recession. Thirdly, and this has only been hinted at on this thread as I recall, (I could be wrong), one problem is that the unemployment rate (strict definition or otherwise) does not take into account institutional changes. But to be a real measure of the welfare cost one has to consider the institutional context. In 1911, the definition of potential labour force included those 10 years of age and over. This was revised to
RE: Re: employment (apologies: long)
-Original Message- From: Charles Jannuzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 October 2002 15:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31148] Re: employment >best you could say it was an argument from >previously established authority Absolutely, because I have no real specialist knowledge of the subject of unemployment statistics and no real prospect of having the time to get any. But look at it this way: What's the knock-down argument to say that people who only skim want ads *should* be counted as "actively looking for work"? I haven't heard it. Same with the long term sick. I don't even understand the argument about the unemployment rate which seems to be arguing that people who have jobs in the armed services ought to be counted as unemployed. What I do know is that there are a lot of people doing good, honest work on this subject, trying to measure what effect various kinds of non-worker populations have on the operations of the labour market, and that the most and the best of them work for the BLS. So in the absence of anyone making a contrary argument to me, I'm going to assume that the inclusion of these groups makes the BLS number worse, rather than better, as a measurement of what it's meant to measure. My understanding of what the BLS unemployment rate is meant to measure is this: it's meant to measure the number of people who would be employed if the labour market were to clear at the current prevailing wage rate, but who are not employed. It's a measure of labour market disequilibrium. There are, I think, two further important questions which arise from this, and part of the reason why we're all talking past each other is that we're taking these two questions out of order. The questions are: 1) Assuming that "unemployment" is used by the official statisticians to measure the extent to which the labour market has failed to clear, should it be measuring something else? and -- and this can most likely only be answered conditionally on a specific answer to 1) above -- 2) Can adjustments be made to the official statistics in order to transform the BLS number into something which works well as a measure of whatever it is that the unemployment rate ought to be naming? Taking these questions in order, I'm much less sure of my ground than I was when I decided to stick my oar in. There's a whole menu of different things which could be reasonably regarded as being named by the words "the unemployment rate": a) the number of people not employed due to the labour market not clearing at the current wage rate and rate of profit b) the number of people who would be unemployed due to the labour market not clearing at some other level of the wage rate and rate of profit (presumably, one which we would regard as "fairer" c) the entire population of those who could conceivably be press-ganged into the labour force, minus the employed d) c) , but minus people who would genuinely choose leisure rather than work given the current level of social benefits e) c), but also minus the people who would choose leisure rather than work given some other (lower or higher) level of social benefits f) d) or e), but assuming people who "would choose leisure rather than work" if they were in some Rawlsian state of maximally rational reflective equilibrium, rather than the choices they might contingently happen to make -- I think that this is what we're thinking about when we start adding back "disenchanted workers". g) any of the above, but adding back in people who have enough non-labour income not to need to work -- the above six are all more or less quantifiable people; I would guess that you could twitch the BLS numbers to give you any of these, albeit that b), e) and f) would require the making of some fairly tendentious adjustments and would give you a number useless for discussion with anyone not already disposed to agree with you. But there is also h) the number of people who regard their lack of a job as being a bad thing for them i) the number of people who regard their lack of a job as being a harm caused to them by outside agency j) the number of people who would be better off if they were given a(ny) job tomorrow k) the number of people for whom there is some specific job which they could do, and which it would make them better off if they were given it tomorrow l) k), but with the constraint that the job must be one which could be offered to them under some organisation of the economy which meets some criterion of fairness relative to the currently prevailing organisation m) variants of all of the above, but defining "job" in a way which does not necessarily imply participation in the wage economy. --- it's probably one of the above that one would want to be thinking of in order to support intuitively attractive propositions like "even one person unemployed is too much"; it's also what I was twittering on about when I was talking about the misery of unemployment. I would
apologies
Title: apologies
from SLATE's news summary:>Israel apologized for what it called the mistaken killing of a Palestinian family in Gaza [by passing Israeli tanks] on Wednesday, the papers say. The defense minister ordered an investigation of the incident.<
This reminds me of a (fictional) event which was mentioned in passing in a science fiction novel I once read ("On Wings of Song" by Thomas M. Disch, 1979): Israel put special leg bracelets on all of the Palestinians to hold them prisoner (to prevent them from moving beyond limited areas); there was a computer mistake which activated the bracelets, killing them all. Apologies all around.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Apologies
I wasn't following those threads closely, but I think , for one thing, he is concerned with getting information and ideas in English back into Japanese for those who can't read English. It's a real burden for those who take it on. My hats off to him for all his efforts. There is far too much disinformation about Japan and disinformation going into Japan from the west. Charles Jannuzi Re: Apologies > I thought that his note showed a sincere caring. He may have been > confused, but he seemed like a nice person, making a nice gesture. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:32:46PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: > > Michael, > > > > I really got our Comrade Miyachi confused, didn't I? It was the > > last thing I wanted to do or, better said, something I never > > wanted to do. I had a Japanese friend during my graduate study > > days and Miyachi reminds me of him: very nice guy from a totally > > different world. > > > > Best, > > Sabri > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Apologies
I thought that his note showed a sincere caring. He may have been confused, but he seemed like a nice person, making a nice gesture. On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:32:46PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: > Michael, > > I really got our Comrade Miyachi confused, didn't I? It was the > last thing I wanted to do or, better said, something I never > wanted to do. I had a Japanese friend during my graduate study > days and Miyachi reminds me of him: very nice guy from a totally > different world. > > Best, > Sabri > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apologies
Michael, I really got our Comrade Miyachi confused, didn't I? It was the last thing I wanted to do or, better said, something I never wanted to do. I had a Japanese friend during my graduate study days and Miyachi reminds me of him: very nice guy from a totally different world. Best, Sabri
Fwd: IWGVT mini-conference at the EEA Boston Park Plaza, March 13-17. Apologies for cross-posting
SESSION 1: DEFINING AND MEASURING VALUE Friday 9am Chair: Alan Freeman Estimating Gross Domestic Product Using a Surplus Value Approach Victor Kasper, Buffalo State College, USA Modelling profit-rate distributions using L-moments Julian Wells, The Open University, UK On the Identity of Value and Labour: A Defence of Intrinsic Value Phil Dunn, Independent, Britain SESSION 2: VALUE IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT Friday 11am Chair: Phil Dunn On Price and Value William Krehm, Independent Economist, Canada Stigler and Barkai on Ricardo's Profit Rate Theory: Some methodological considerations 35 years later Andrew Kliman, Pace University, USA The Labour Theory of Value: Economics or Ethics? Peter Dooley, University of Saskatchewan, Canada SESSION 3: DOES THE SRAFFIAN CRITIQUE OF MARX SUCCEED? Friday 2pm Chair: Julian Wells Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism Gary Mongiovi, St John's University, USA Discussants: Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman SESSION 4: GOVERNMENT, POLICY AND CRITICAL ECONOMICS Friday 4pm Chair: Andrew Kliman Current Factors Which Make Science a Productive Force at the Service of Capital the Fourth Stage in the Running London: Practical Economics in a Growing World City Alan Freeman, University of Greenwich, UK Production Organization Dimitri Uzinidis, Universite du Littoral, Dunkerque, France Self-administration: solution via value to the urban transportations problems Vladimir Micheletti, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Brasil, Brasil --- Dear friend Please find attached the list of sessions and abstracts for the IWGVT mini-conference at the EEA in Boston, March 15th-17th 2002. Papers will be posted on the website if time permits but may initially be available only at the conference itself do to extreme pressure of work. They may also be e-mailed on request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I feel I owe you all a particular apology for the extreme lateness, on this occasion, of notification about the mini-conference, in contrast with our past practice. A number of other highly significant IWGVT events took priority including the two successful Greenwich University symposia; last years colloquium at La Sapienza University in Rome, and the book which arose from it; and (finally!) the forthcoming publication of an edited collection of past papers from the mini-conferences. Other demands on the conference organizer made it impossible to achieve the required standards in organizing this conference; during the last year I have been in transition from my academic job to my present position as economist at the GLA and for most of last year I was doing both jobs. This transition is now complete; the growing level of academic and political interest and support for the views that the IWGVT was created to propound is testimony to its vitality. I look forward to seeing those of you that are coming to the Boston conference and can take this opportunity to give you an early reminder that next years EEA, and IWGVT mini-conference, will be in New York. Best wishes Alan Freeman
apologies apologies
I agree it is surprising to read how carefully Hardt and Negri compare
the views of Hilferding and Lenin when this is unlikely to increase sales
of a book which has all the characteristics of a left wing commodity
fashion statement.
I think that is perhaps the reason why it is *not* strange that on a
number of lists, discussion has been dominated by those who deeply
mistrust the apparent superficiality of the politics ("irrepressible
lightness and joy of being communist"). Nevetheless as I tried
to point out on this list and on LBO-talk the critics did not address
this important theoretical argument about the nature of imperialism.
Hardt and Negri may express it a little too blandly, but they do not
express themselves elusively here. The argument is quite capable of
critique, and I hope those who are hostile to Hardt and Negri will help
the list by pointing out the weaknesses in it specifically. Otherwise I
will mistrust my impression.
As for Greg's other apology, no one can read everyone's posts. I only
made my mild expression of umbrage as a way of drawing attention to some
of my posts, and because I thought Greg's stronger expression of umbrage
at some views of Mark Jones, who I also think makes very important
points, might be a bit too robust. I also find myself very much in
sympathy with Mark's attention to the detail of inter-imperialist
rivalry.
Perhaps the answer to the riddle is this - that we are emphasising
different aspects of a single contradictory system. Yes there is
continual struggle between sections of capital and their representatives,
but the whole thing operates as a system, partly through these
processes of struggle and equilibration.
Perhaps it is also that the development of the processes of production
means that these transnational companies, like the foreign offices of the
leading capitalist states, are run by high paid members of the
intelligentsia who do the bidding of capital and identify with it, and
may have substantial shares in it, but they do it as a job. The secret
truth is that a significant section of the British Foreign Office loathes
and detests the United States, and will do anything to diminish the
status of their rivals, but they know it is a complicated game and it
must be played according to smiling rules of sportsmanship. This too is
part of the fine detail of the many bits of fine detail of how the
present dramatic "world coalition" is maturing - will it just
be a re-run of US hegemony, or will there be a more consensual, still
unjust, but more consensual understanding of justice. These members of
the elite intelligentsia are interchangeable like those who run Shell or
bp. So the conflict is institutionalised and contained, including the
flexibility to adapt to changes of relative power. A territorial base is
no longer necessary, when the world media brings the images of New York
into the living rooms of a billion people across the world.
I find Greg's vow of silence inappropriate, especially since he has
contributed important non-dogmatic ideas and arguments. Besides if I
expressed mild umbrage it was only to adjust the spice in the debate a
little. Sometimes too, "the blows fall on the sack, but are meant
for the ass."
Chris Burford
London
At 26/09/01 15:32 +0800, you wrote:
Chris I owe you an apology. I looked up your
references below to Hardt and Negri and was genuinely surprised that I
should be echoing their logic, in passing I also read some other
interesting points they raise.
What can I say except that they come at things from an angle which I find
strained and oblique and at first put me off anything they were saying -
I now find I must read them in detail. Strangely I had raised similar
matters on other listservers where "Empire" was being discussed
(universally criticized) and no one raised the point you have and for
that I am grateful as I long believed I was the only one who saw this and
thought it important.
At 22:59 25/09/01 +0100, you wrote:
However the issue of super or ultra
imperialism appears to be pertinently discussed in detail by Hardt and
Negri on pages 229 and 230 of Empire.
They argue that while Lenin adopted the analytical propositions of
Hilferding and Kautsky he strongly rejected their political
conclusions.
The analysis hinges on the process of equalisation of the rate of profit.
Hilferding argued that "the domination and division of the world
market by monopolies had made the process of equalixation virtually
impossible. Only if the national central banks were to intervene, or
better, if a unified international bank were to intervene, could this
contradiction, which portends both trade wars and fighting wars, be
equalized and placated."
It seems I have much catching up to do before I raise anything worthwhile
and for this I apologise to all those on this list.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia.
Apologies
Sorry for boring pen-lers with private mail. Trevor Evans Paul Lincke Ufer 44 10999 Berlin Tel & Fax +49 30 612 3951 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IWGVT (Value Theory) website update: apologies for cross-posting
Papers and up-to-date session list for the EEA have now been posted to the IWGVT website www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt In addition the previous conferences are now re-indexed with a complete new web page on which you can locate papers by author, abstract or conference session. This can be accessed from the page above, or directly from www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt2 Please contact me with information about any bugs, problems etc so we can fix them quick. Participants: CHECK YOUR PAPER IS THERE. IF IT ISN'T, and YOU HAVE SENT A PAPER, CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY WITH THE PAPER! Also, check where you are chairing, or discussing. Alan Freeman
The Other Economics Conference session list; apologies for cross-posting
Here's the session list and details of the Association For Heterodox Economics conference at the end of June in London Alan ASSOCIATION FOR HETERODOX ECONOMICS THE OTHER ECONOMICS CONFERENCE, 2000 AT THE OPEN UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE CENTRE 344-354 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8BP Tuesday-Wednesday, 27-28 June 2000 Programme PROVISIONAL INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION 1. Getting to The Open University Conference Centre: see the enclosed flyer and map. 2. All sessions will be in Rooms 1, 2, and 7. Registration will be in the foyer as you enter the Conference Centre. 3. Each paper is scheduled for 20-25 minutes and there will be 20-30 minutes for discussion. Each room will be supplied with flipcharts and overhead projectors. 4. The chairperson oversees the session and is to make sure that the presenter does not over-run their allocated time. 5. Each presenter should bring at least 5 copies of his/her paper to the Conference. Each presenter should also send a copy of their paper to the chairperson of their session. 6. There will be a poster session on the first day. There will be eight presenters who will have put on one or two poster boards the essential points of their papers. The conference participants are encouraged to attend the session, examine the posters and engage the presenters in discussion and with questions. 7. The poster boards and other material for the poster session will be available during the morning and from 1.00 to 2.00 p.m. in Room 1. 8. There will be two plenary sessions at the end of each day. Because it takes time to set up the room for the plenary session, there will be a 55 minute break between the last session and the plenary session. There is a conference pub where participants can socialise: Lucas Arms on Grays Inn Road. 9. Meals will not be provided by the Conference, except for the dinner on the first night--see below. The Kings Cross area has many places to eat, so you need not go far to get a meal. 10. There will be a dinner on Tuesday 27 June 2000 starting at 8.30 p.m. Tickets are required and have to bought ahead of time. The restaurant is very close to the Conference Centre. 11. Book publishers will be present at the Conference. 12. The Conference is supported by the Conference of Socialist Economists, the Post Keynesian Economics Study Group, and the International Working Group on Value Theory. PROGRAMME June 27, 2000 8.30 - 4.00 Registration 9.00 - 10.35Session A Global Political Economy and Room 1 Development: Finance Chairperson: Iraj Seyf (Staffordshire University) Wendy Olsen (University of Bradford), "The Subversion of Cooperation by Capitalist Monetary Theory: Case Studies from Various Locations" Rebecca Coke (University of the Philippines), "Financial Shocks and Credit Flows: Microfinance Lending Patterns in Philippine Institutions" Alfredo Saad Filho (South Bank University) and Maria Amarante P. Baracho (Fundacao Joao Pinheiro), "Financing Development: The State and the Financial System Under Import Substituting Industrialisation in Brazil" Session B Microeconomics: Markets and Room 2 Power Chairperson: Gary Slater (University of Leeds) Robert Burns (University of Massachusetts-Amherst), "A Marxian Theory of Prices" Stephen Merrett (SOAS), "Objects or Subjects? Behaviourial Studies of the Domestic Demand for Water Services in Africa" Geoffrey Whittam (University of Paisley) and Mike Danson (University of Paisley), "Power and the Spirit of Clustering" Session C Heterodox Political Economy: Room 7 Public Finance Chairperson: Fieke van der Lecq (ESB) Michael Keaney (Glasgow Caledonian University), "TheConsumption of the State: Private Finance, Public Procurement, and the Slow Death of Local Accountability Sergio Cesaratto (University of Roma), "Pension Systems and Economic Analysis: A non-orthodox view" J. Laramie (Merrimack College) and Douglas Mair (Heriot-Watt University), "A Dynamic Theory of Taxation" 10.35 - 11.00 Tea/Coffee/Juice 11.00 - 1.00Session D Methodology, Economic HistoryRoom 1 and Economics Thought: History and Method Chairperson: Paul Downward (Staffordshire University) Colin Ash (University of Reading), "Buddhist Economics: Scope and Method" Siobhain McGovern (Dublin City University), "When is a School not a School? The case of utility
Apologies for erroneous posting
The three last messages from me were meant for the OPE-L list! Apologies to members of both lists. Actually, the NIPA proposal was due to go out to PEN-L anyhow, but I guess the discussion on cats must have been a bit confusing to those not part of the thread. Not to mention the cats. Anyhow, seasons' greetings everyone. Alan Freeman
(Fwd) Re: PKs and Apologies
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rakesh Bhandari)
> Subject: Re: PKs and Apologies
> First, men are to leave these gatherings emboldened to make women serve
> them--their children, the sick, the aged and themselves--as long as they
> button-up, sit up straight and go to work (though of course the majority of
That wasn't what the gatherings were about.
The dominant theme was atonement for past
sins, much more than your parody ("button-up,
etc."). People are reading domination into
this more than MAY be warranted, was my point.
> . . .
> Second, what's this crap about making men feel they have a moral obligation
> to keep their promises. Men are obligated to make a family wage to support
> their wives and children?! So men are obligated to work however many hours
> and in whatever conditions it will take to keep their pututative promises
> to be economically responsible for their families?!
YES.
> Of course to keep the family-based promises, male workers have to agree to
> give up more labor time in their contracts with capital. This seems to me
Not necessarily. To keep their promises, maybe men
have to challenge the rule of Capital. As far as it goes,
PK doesn't really preclude a world of possibilities.
Once again, I think you're reading too much into,
rather than drawing from. You may not know that
the evangelical movement early 20th century was
aligned with populism and included many bone-rattling
denunciations of Capital, if not of capitalism in its
entirety.
If you don't mind, I would say all this commends
to us all another homely virtue . . . being a good
listener. Tomorrow we'll cover eating your
vegetables.
> Family values of the Walton's type (catch it on the family channel) is the
> utopia of the bourgeoisie on the precipice of catastrophic depression.
>
> And it seems to me to be the family values that Schumpeter found so
> attractive in Hitler's vision.
Yipes. We're on the precipice of catastrohpic
depression??!? Schumpeterian Hitlerism?
I love PEN-L.
Meanwhile, Doug said:
Why can't we imagine an even better scenario - drunkard & fornicator
gives it up and pledges himself to an equal partnership with his wife?
Why does a return to "health" have to come with a reassertion of
patriarchy?
To which I reply, of course we can, and of course it
doesn't. Now, don't you think that getting past the
drunkard/fornicator part is more difficult than moving from
virtuous patriarch to equal partnership? In the first case, you've
got some meathead who can't even carry on a serious
conversation.
I liked the Zizek quote and agreed with Wojtek that it is more
difficult to read than it needs to be. I'll leave the translation
debate to Tom and W.
Cheers,
MBS
===
Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===
Re: PKs and Apologies
Max B. Sawicky wrote: >I wonder about peoples' negative scenarios >regarding the remark that bothered you. >Billy Bob Sixpack, former fornicator and >drunkard, cleans up his act, appears at >his family dinner table, swears devotion >to Jesus Christ and family values, says >"I am now the head of this family," and >does . . . what exactly? > >How does the totality of his new conduct >makes the family worse off than previously? Why can't we imagine an even better scenario - drunkard & fornicator gives it up and pledges himself to an equal partnership with his wife? Why does a return to "health" have to come with a reassertion of patriarchy? Doug
Re: PKs and Apologies
Thanks, though 'clarification' rather than apology would have been sufficient. I wonder about peoples' negative scenarios regarding the remark that bothered you. Billy Bob Sixpack, former fornicator and drunkard, cleans up his act, appears at his family dinner table, swears devotion to Jesus Christ and family values, says "I am now the head of this family," and does . . . what exactly? How does the totality of his new conduct makes the family worse off than previously? It reminds me of the Muslims turning hardened criminals into religious zealots, though the PK process would seem to be less extreme at the front end, at least. On balance, you'd have to say we're all better off as a result, though the blessings are mixed. mbs === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11014] Apologies for Duplication
Sorry about the duplication of my last two posts. The e-mail was down here at my university for a day and when it came back up it did not send my posts. As a result I resent them and then the computer sent the others as well. Ah well !!! Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:8535] cockroaches and apologies
Sorry (ooops! There I Go Again!!!) for taking time on this, but I think the record needs to be set straight, especially as I think that I am the only person besides bob malecki on pen-l to have gone through the final stages of the M-1 list. A few points: 1) It is a matter of record that during that dismal period I criticized BOTH bob malecki and Louis Proyect in very strong terms that I shall not repeat here, blaming the two of them above all others for what was going on that dying list. 2) It is also a matter of record that I pointed out that Louis Proyect had failed to establish his main charges against bob and criticized him for his vendetta. Besides all his agent provocateur charges, Louis P. had claimed that bob (who was bombing the list with his autobiography, hence my knowledge of his "strange" past) had never been arrested for his anti-war activities. Bob was able to demonstrate by reference to newspaper reports that he indeed had been. 3) At one point I sided with Louis P. when he pointed out that bob had claimed that he had worked in a defense plant in (or near) Cleveland that was the "Ford plant of General Motors," or some such bizarre construction. I may be misremembering that name precisely, but it was something ridiculous in any case and I said that Louis had finally punched a hole in bob's account. Bob later agreed that this was inaccurate and claimed that he had misremembered the name of the plant. I have no reason to doubt this correction of bob's. 4) As I told bob in a private post, I happen to feel that if I have made a mistake and wronged somebody, then I should apologize. If this means that bob thinks that I am some sniveling wimp, worm, or cockroach, well, I have my asbestos suit on, :-). 5) To bob malecki: One other thing that I warned you about in my private post was that Michael Perelman runs pen-l with a strong hand and does not tolerate what he considers to be unacceptable behavior. Many have disagreed with him on his policies, myself included at times, but you were duly warned before you walked onto the list. Thus, I consider your cursing at him to be really ridiculous. Either cool out or get out. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8325] Apologies for Natl. Self-Sufficiency
Apologies for the posting to the wrong list.
[PEN-L:8272] Re: Apologies, again, for posting to the world
PEN-L, I did it again: posted to the world, being in a hurry. I apologize and will _really_ try to slow down. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8272] Re: Apologies, again, for posting to the world
PEN-L, I did it again: posted to the world, being in a hurry. I apologize and will _really_ try to slow down. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8250] Apologies
My apologies. I carelessly thought that I was responding to a private message from Jerry. Shawgi justifiably asks: > > Finally, Michael, why do you say that it is a "problem" that people respond > to my posts? This is extremely strange. > Some people vehemently object to Shawgi's "Stalinism." I have never seen him declare himself to be a stalinist and until I do, I would not use such a label. Shawgi has, I believe, adhered to his part of the bargain. I try to intervene in pen-l as little as possible, but I do so, often to the vehement objections of the libertarians on the list. I try to keep us from getting bogged down in areas that "turn off" many people on the list. I use the rate of defections from pen-l as a rough indicator of how well the list is working. I was concerned that a few people were engaging in a dialogue with Shawgi that seemed to threaten to rekindle the ugly flare up in which Shawgi was treated rather shabily -- thus, the "problem." I would like to put the matter to rest. Finally, I would like to ask all people involved to refrain from personal attacks. Their are many bastards out their worthy of our wrath and scorn. We should not waste our hostility on each other. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8250] Apologies
My apologies. I carelessly thought that I was responding to a private message from Jerry. Shawgi justifiably asks: > > Finally, Michael, why do you say that it is a "problem" that people respond > to my posts? This is extremely strange. > Some people vehemently object to Shawgi's "Stalinism." I have never seen him declare himself to be a stalinist and until I do, I would not use such a label. Shawgi has, I believe, adhered to his part of the bargain. I try to intervene in pen-l as little as possible, but I do so, often to the vehement objections of the libertarians on the list. I try to keep us from getting bogged down in areas that "turn off" many people on the list. I use the rate of defections from pen-l as a rough indicator of how well the list is working. I was concerned that a few people were engaging in a dialogue with Shawgi that seemed to threaten to rekindle the ugly flare up in which Shawgi was treated rather shabily -- thus, the "problem." I would like to put the matter to rest. Finally, I would like to ask all people involved to refrain from personal attacks. Their are many bastards out their worthy of our wrath and scorn. We should not waste our hostility on each other. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8238] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
>Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to >everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute It seems like late night is a bad time to send email; my apologies for posting my E-NODE column to Penl when I meant to send it to someone else. Anders Schneiderman
[PEN-L:8238] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
>Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to >everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute It seems like late night is a bad time to send email; my apologies for posting my E-NODE column to Penl when I meant to send it to someone else. Anders Schneiderman
[PEN-L:8223] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8223] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:7692] utopian apologies
oops. This Alzheimer's is getting to be too much. ;-) Actually, it's the absent-minded professor syndrome, which gets worse when I have too much work to do. I sent a ms. on utopias to pen-l that was actually supposed to go to Phil O'Hara's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, the first book ever known to be produced mostly via e-mail. (Note how I subtlely snuck in a plug.) Anyway, if anyone has any comments on my ms. on Utopia, please send them to me directly rather than to pen-l. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:6940] On apologies
I am as careless as anybody about accidently sending private messages on the list. I assume that anyone who does so, wishes that they did not. To send an apology probably just clutters the list. Apologetically, -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5215] Apologies to pen-lers
Sorry about my last message. I hit the "R" and meant to send it to Blair privately. I don't apologize for the sentiments. Jim Craven *---** * James Craven * "All things have inner meaning and * * Dept of Economics* form and power." (Hopi) * * Clark College* "In this world the unseen has power." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (Apache) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * "Be satisfied with needs instead of * * (360) 992-2283 * wants." (Tenton Lakota) * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "The Great Spirit is always angry * * * with men who shed innocent blood."* * * (Iowa)* * * "It is no longer good enough to cry * * * peace, we must act peace, live peace, * * * and live in peace."(Shenandoah) * * * "A people without a history is like * * the wind over buffalo grass."(Lakota) * ** * "There are many paths to a meaningful sense of the natural world." * * (Blackfeet); "A shady lane breeds mud." (Hopi); * * "Strive to be a person who is never absent from an important act." * * (Osage); "Men in search of a myth will usually find one."(Pueblo) * * "Life is not separate from death. It only looks that way." * * (Blackfeet); "Some are smart but they are not wise."(Shoshone); * * "The one who tells the stories rules the world." (Hopi); * * "Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance." (Lakota); * * "The only things that need the protection of men are the things of * * men, not the things of the spirit." (Crow); "When the legends* * die, the dreams end; there is no more greatness."( Shawnee ); * * "I love a people who do not live for the love of money."(Dwamish) * * "Stolen food never satisfies hunger." (Omaha); "Man's law changes * * with his understanding of man. Only the laws of the spirit always * * remain the same." (Crow); "It takes a whole village to raise a* * child." (Omaha); "Everything the Power does, it does in a circle."* * (Lakota); "Man has responsibility, not power."(Tuscarora) * * "With all things and in all things, we are relatives." (Lakota) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:3426] Apologies for message 3413
Sorry to all Pen-l-ers, I put a personal message for Alan Freeman by mistake on the wrong address and sent it to the list. Sorry. Robert Went International Institute for Research and Education (IIRE) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postbus 53290, 1007 RG Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: 31 20 6717263 Fax: 31 20 6732106
[PEN-L:4540] Re: Apologies
Twice, sid, it went out to use twice -- but hey whose counting!
[PEN-L:4538] Apologies
Sorry. Somebody sent me a request for the TWU paper via the Pen listserv. So when I responsded by uploading the paper and sending it back to the originating address, it went to Pen. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:4221] Apologies
Apologies to folks who are feeling inundated with unsolicited forwarded messages from Mexico. I have been informed that these messages are not the subject of universal appreciation among folks on the list. So I will put an end to forwarding them. For anyone on the list does want to keep abreast of developments in Mexico, I am including the information on how to sign up on the various lists. Sid Shniad Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 10:55:59 CST Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: your request. The current situation in Mexico, particularly in Chiapas, is such that we need greater efficiency and speed in communicating information and analysis. This is now possible at a minimum cost thanks to e-mail which can facilitate even sending faxes to those overseas who do not have e-mail. Many people and groups overseas are also interested in better information on what is happening in Mexico, in order to make their solidarity more effective. With a view to organizing a network of communication, the following centers have come together to form MEXPAZ: i CENCOS, CAM, CEE, CRT, PUEBLO, SIPRRO, CECOPE, ESPAZ* and the Office in Mexico City of the Diocesis of San Cristobal.As MEXPAZ, we would like to make the following proposal: 1) Form an editorial team whch will produce the information and analysis and translate them into English. Each week there will be a new number of a bulletin in three chapters, entitled: National Information, General Analysis and Chiapas. As well, we shall provide a forum for questions to do with solidarity and action alerts that will be called: Solidarity. 2) The bulletin will be sent from the Iberoamerican University here in Mexico City to all those who want it once they have subscribed to this service (cost free). The technical details for subscription are below. 3) For those who still do not have e-mail, we would like to urge you to try and find out how you might get access to it. If this is not possible quickly, we urge you to look for a center near you which does have it and who might be willing to get copies to you by fax. In this way we could improve our networks of communication between those in Mexico and those in your country. We can, in certain cases, send the information to you directly by FAX. However, this obviously involves much greater cost. 4) The chapters will deal with the following themes: Information: on Mexico generally, using a chronology and a synthesis of the political, economic and social aspects as well as a <> section. The same information is usually posted on the APC network in the conference <> with the title <>. Analysis:a general evaluation of the situation in Mexico Chiapas: concrete developments in the peace process The forum, <>:distinct elements of civil society in Mexico will post here initiatives or concrete proposals for those involved in international solidarity with Mexico. It will also include urgent news items and information on specific conflicts. For this reason, we ask you to maintain your participation to this forum very much to the point. We shall reserve the right to restrict access to this latter forum. 5). In order to subscribe you can send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] placing the following command in the text-body of the message for the corresponding chapter: To receive:Write in the message: Information (English) subscribe information Informacion (Spanish) subscribe informacion Analysis (English) subscribe analysis Analisis (Spanish) subscribe analisis Chiapas (English) subscribe chiapas- eng Chiapas (Spanish) subscribe chiapas- esp Solidarity subscribe solidarity Solidaridadsubscribe solidaridad If you choose to subscribe to various or all four, merely send a mail message with the correct entry in the text-body of each one. In order to unsubscribe, follow the same procedure using the word <> in place of <> in the examples above. If you have questions concerning technical matters, you can send them to the same address with <> in the <> field of the message. If you have questions concerning the content of the information or need to clarify something, send mail to the same address with <> in the <> field of the message. Please note the spelling! For example, I, John Smith, want to receive the chapter <> and also participate in the forum, <>. Then, I send the following two messages: To: [EMAIL PR
Re: apologies re: Progressive, quantitative studies of crime?
Let me thank Blair for his apologies. Perhaps I was over-reacting too and if I was I am sorry. My over-reaction stems from the fact that some people were ready to put me off this list two years ago and Jim Devine just reminded me of that sad episode recently when he said he should not even be answering something I had written - I hope Jim you really did not mean that. On crime and violence and poverty and all, I really do believe that violence is caused by poor economic conditions and unemployment. I also believe that most people do not measure the real costs of unemployment and thus underestimate its importance as something to avoid. Thanks again Blair! D.J. McCready Phones: (519) 884-0710, ext. 2563; (519)884-2651; (519)572-3667 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apologies re: Progressive, quantitative studies of crime?
Oh my god, I feel really foolish -- and sorry. I never meant to make Doug McCready "look like an imbecile" (his words); I understood that he meant there are useful, politically progressive, etc., etc. things to say about these issues, rather than the usual right-wing rant. It really never occurred to me that my post would be taken as a criticism of Doug. I just took it as an opportunity to say something that I thought would be amusing. I was struck by the fact that all the answers to Jim O'Connor's "quiz" about right-wing ideology were basically sarcastic response mimicking the right-wing discourse, and I think I was taking advantage of the specific phrasing Doug used to add to that general discussion, even though the specific topic was somewhat different. Anyway, let me repeat: I was trying to be amusing; I never meant to attack Doug or what he said in any way at all. Please accept my most humble apologies to Doug and to the list. Let me repeat that: my most humble apologies to Doug and to the list. Blair Sandler
Re: Bill Mitchell on F&V (with apologies)
Apology in advance: I continue to be interested in the F&V thread, but doubt that at this point I can do anything more than repeat myself. Which is why I said that I was "over and out". However, Pellissippi gets Internet access through two intermediate steps (TECNET and Bitnet), and somewhere along the line there is an inability to access an international domain nameserver. Therefore I cannot reply to Bill Mitchell except through pen (or pkt). Of course, I don't mind anyone listening in, but DELETE IF BORED!!! Bill, Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:59:58 -0700, you wrote, > you have decided it is over and out yet you finish with 3 beguiling > questions which presumably are not intended to be purely rhetorical. Oh no. I just decided I would rather listen than talk anymore on this. Over and out is Citizen Band radio slang: if CB'er 1 says "over" to pass the channel on to CB'er 2, when CB'er 2 says "over" in turn, a reply from CB'er 1 is expected. If CB'er 1 says over and out, the microphone is being put down, but the radio is still on. You say > In terms of economics, there is only one > paradigm which makes the F & V distinction that both Alan and Gil have > been making (despite their lapses towards my own position as noted > above). The mainstream paradigm trades on it,although even then most of > the hard core of the paradigm is impossible to test (even if we believed > such testing could be done). Which is not the same as saying that there is only one economic paradigm which makes A fact / value distinction. The instutionalists (BTW by which by I mean the peleo-instituionalists, unreconstructed institionalists, or, more optimistically, the actual institutionalists such as those I studied under at UT Knoxville, not the "NEW" institutionalisms, where NEW seems to be an acronym for No Earthly Way Institionalist), following Veblen. developed a distinction between instrumental and ceremonial values, where instrumental values evaluates on the basis of the consequence, and ceremonial values evaluates on the basis of adherence to social norms. After Veblen this lapsed into a dichotomy, but instituionalists have been insistent since the 1940's (BTW well before sociology of knowledge became a fashionable discipline) that the positive / normative distinction holds no water. So when I saw what in your eyes is a contradictory position: >I have been generally > confused by the position Alan and Gil have taken here. They seem to pump > out this positivist line about f & v distinctions arguing the need for it > as a means of disciplining discourse and more. But then Gil says that > (not verbotem): "of-course I never said anything about objectified > facts"and Alan said (not verbotem): "of-course there is no such thing as > an uninterpreted fact". both statements are anti-positivist and dare i > say it - In total agreement with my position which has not wavered in > this debate. So despite all the rhetoric I am left confused about their > real position and agenda. Are they positivists, who believe that the > F & V distinction can be made and that Facts provide independent and > objectified data upon which positive theoretica axioms can be confronted > and tested? Or are they not? I saw the possibility that they had lapsed into a fact / value distinction which is on the other side of the fence from the idea that one can sensibly think about seperate positive and normative problems, or theories, or whatever. I think most of your critique of the fact/value distinction, where it refers to the Cartesian positive/normative version, is sound. But I disagree on two basic points: (1) The neoclassical theory trades on painting the Cartesian version of the fact value distinction as THE fact value distinction. Because the two are *not* identical, and people *make* fact value distinctions all the time, agreeing with the NC's that the fact value distinction is the same thing as the Cartesian fallacy lends support to the latter. Divide and conquer, Bill: find a way to consistently tell people that there is something there when they make fact value distinctions, BUT the NC theory is trading on a common confusion about what is going on when the distinction is made. > you found Alan's argument to be persuasive. ... I found it to be > unpersuasive.(1) we often resolve disagreements about matters of fact by > attempting to determine differences in our values. I found his heuristic argument persuasive, but perhaps not of what Alan wanted to establish. The heuristic argument pointed to the fact/value distinction being part of the norms of particular types of discussion. Which ought to lead us to *anticipate* that the norms will be observed both in the act and in the breach. > (2) values are fairly immutable once developed. so to say "we do not > generally attempt to resolve the question ...[about a matter of > fact]...by trying to findthe right values" misses the point badly. > First, we will only see the same "
Aggregate Demand, with Apologies
Dear Penners, Oh my. I started this whole brouhaha about AD but have only now had time to read people's comments. May i ask your forbearance to slip in one more thought on the AS-AD controversy? A few people suggested that properly labeling the vertical axis as the inflation rate rather than the price level would improve the AD-AS framework immeasurably. Certainly the AS story begins to sound reasonable when the issue is output vs. inflation, rather than output vs. the price level. Why then is the price level placed on the vertical axis rather than the inflation rate? Let me venture a guess. By using the price level rather than the inflation rate on the vertical axis, textbook writers are able to concoct an odd and unlikely -- but a logically consistent -- tale about the AGGREGATE DEMAND curve. It is a weird stor story about the AGGREGATE DEMAND curve. It is a weird and implausible story, relying on assumptions of fixed money supplies and foreign substitution affects, but it is MUCH LESS WEIRD than the story one would need to fabricate in order to generate a negative relationship between the inflation rate and aggregate demand for output. In short, the price level is used because otherwise there would be no AD curve. Without an AD curve, there would be nothing to hang the vertical AS curve upon. Best, Ellen Frank
Aggregate Demand, with Apologies
Dear Penners, Oh my. I started this whole brouhaha about AD but have only now had time to read people's comments. May i ask your forbearance to slip in one more thought on the AS-AD controversy? A few people suggested that properly labeling the vertical axis as the inflation rate rather than the price level would improve the AD-AS framework immeasurably. Certainly the AS story begins to sound reasonable when the issue is output vs. inflation, rather than output vs. the price level. Why then is the price level placed on the vertical axis rather than the inflation rate? Let me venture a guess. By using the price level rather than the inflation rate on the vertical axis, textbook writers are able to concoct an odd and unlikely -- but a logically consistent -- tale about the AGGREGATE DEMAND curve. It is a weird stor story about the AGGREGATE DEMAND curve. It is a weird and implausible story, relying on assumptions of fixed money supplies and foreign substitution affects, but it is MUCH LESS WEIRD than the story one would need to fabricate in order to generate a negative relationship between the inflation rate and aggregate demand for output. In short, the price level is used because otherwise there would be no AD curve. Without an AD curve, there would be nothing to hang the vertical AS curve upon. Best, Ellen Frank
