Opinion poll query
PEN-L: I am reviewing From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map, a collection of essays by the late Edward W. Said, for the Sacramento News & Review. I seem to recall a recent opinion poll referenced on PEN-L concerning Americans who wrongly thought that Palestinians occupied Israel. Does this poll ring a bell? If so, please let me know off-list. Thanks, Seth Sandronsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors - correction
In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:35:11 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A per unit drop of labor input of 40% in 30 years is running at an annual improvement factor of more than 10% and what is built into the union contract is an annual improvement factor of 3% increase in wages. The 3% annual improvement factor (AIF) was actually lost during years of concessionary contracts - 1980-1993, and "re-won" in the mid 1990s. Correction 10% should be one percent. Contract negotiations took place every three years until changed in the late 1990s to a five year contract.
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
>General Motors put on the back burner for a moment its new production facility design of modular produced vehicles . .. where the modules are shipped to a central point for assembly. By the early 1970 General Motors already had the blueprints for a 90 - 95% automated engine assembly plant . . . and I remember their statement that such a plant would destroy the labor market and their consumer base. Even without utilizing the advance technology available per unit labor input has still dropped at least 40% in 30 years. What next . . . trying to make money at big stakes crap tables?< Melvin P. Comment A per unit drop of labor input of 40% in 30 years is running at an annual improvement factor of more than 10% and what is built into the union contract is an annual improvement factor of 3% increase in wages. The 3% annual improvement factor (AIF) was actually lost during years of concessionary contracts - 1980-1993, and "re-won" in the mid 1990s. If you were hired in the auto industry in 1972 and retired 2002 - after 30 years, what you experienced was a revolution in production that defines the meaning of downsizing. The increase in production was not accomplished just on the basis of speed up. Speed up is very different from a deep going intensification of the production process itself. There is another process of revolution in the material power of the productive forces taking place. The physical toil of a man's muscles can get easier as he is deployed to do the job of 25 people . . . due to advanced robotics and computers. Ford is slated to build its 3rd plant in China . . . in partnership with local manufacturers and these new plants are always built on the basis of a quantitative expansion of the intensive dynamic - quality, of the configuration of the production process. Unlike the Ford Motor Company's dealing with the Soviets in the 1920 and 1930 where they sold the USSR old tooling and antiquated production equipment . . . vehicles from China can only be profitable on the basis of not just cheap labor but revolutionizing the production process itself. Auto seems to be in the process of catching a cold . . . although the expansion of credit and debt has taught me a real lesson about consumption and production. I thought we would crash in 1996, 97 and 98 . . . only to see the expansion of credit and then in the wake of 9/11 . . . 2001/2202 cycle . . . zero interest rates. I did not predict zero interest rates and 60 month car notes. I actually come out of a historic 36-48 month credit and production cycle. What next . . . the ten year loan . . . with a guaranteed free upkeep - scheduled maintenance of ones vehicle? The Koreas makers are setting the pace on maintenance. And no . . . Marx did not predict this. Wasn't Marx dead when the gasoline automobile came on line? He did predict the process as the general law of capital accumulation in its absolute sense. Nevertheless when auto catches a cold the economy goes into withdrawal from consumption . . . and is driven to the emergency room for blood transfusion and pumped up with dope. Melvin P.
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
In a message dated 7/23/2004 4:04:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >CB: Well GM is only about the third largest company in the world now. I wonder if what's good for General Motors is still good for America. Way back in the thirties it was Alfred P. Sloan ( I think) who said GM is in the business of making money, not cars. Nice slogan for the merger of industrial and finance capital as Finance Capital. Comment Would one call General Motors and Ford Motors primary sources of profitability - outside of purely vehicle financing . . . mortgages for instance (DITECH) . . . a tendency towards the domination . . . if not outright domination . . . of speculative capital? This is meant in the sense that no one speaks of an industrial capital today that is dominated by banks . . . but rather something that is different. General Motors owned the Hughes communications outfit (counterpart and competitor of DIRECTV). All the large automakers have these massive high tech communications networks to tie their organizations together. For instance DaimlerChrysler has it own television network that runs continuous news in its plants as well as its financial arm . . . Chrysler Financial. These communications system are league beyond video conferences and match modern news agencies like CNN. About a year or so ago on Marxmail we had a discussion about "profitless prosperity." "Profitless prosperity" was the exact term used by the financial analyst of Ford Motor Company in a worldwide broadcast on the state of the auto industry and its market shares and projections for the future back in December 2002. It was in fact about a year ago that a discussion took place where Sartesian pointed out the 40% drop in labor input per vehicle since 1973 . . . yet the competition in auto is a dogfight . . . always requiring a massive outlay of capital to intensify the production process (organic composition), maintain the production and administrative infrastructure as well as other cost associated with labor. Profitless prosperity on the basis of vehicle production speaks of the incredible pull of value in the direction of zero and not away from zero. These companies possess incredible and magnificent industrial and communications infrastructures tied together an increasingly interactive world. Wait until the vehicles from China hit the market and go after first the Korea makers and then everyone else. The vehicles are already produced and waiting approval for market entry. For my money I cannot understand the economic incentive for the large automakers to NOT advocate for a nationwide health plan paid by the government. Chrysler has a 1 employed for two retired workers cost structure . . . and just cut some of our health benefits . . . for retired workers and GM slashed the medical benefits for its retired executive workers (nonunion) almost a decade ago and won it case in court about 3 . . . maybe four years ago. Jergen Schemp announced back in 2001 that perhaps upwards of 200,000 workers would be cut from the world automotive industry. Then again it was rumored that a section of the management of Chrysler Motors wanted to drop the car division altogether and concentrate on trucks. Strange. General Motors put on the back burner for a moment its new production facility design of modular produced vehicles . .. where the modules are shipped to a central point for assembly. By the early 1970 General Motors already had the blueprints for a 90 - 95% automated engine assembly plant . . . and I remember their statement that such a plant would destroy the labor market and their consumer base. Even without utilizing the advance technology available per unit labor input has still dropped at least 40% in 30 years. What next . . . trying to make money at big stakes crap tables? Melvin P.
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
I don't recall the exact details, but a few years ago when Rupert Murdoch was looking to expand his satellite business the Wall Street Journal said that he was mulling over the possibility of buying General Motors, because its satellite division was worth more on the market than the company as a whole. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Query: Ford/General Motors
It made the Chicago papers too; I can't remember now, but I think there was a brief story on it in the Bloomington Pantagraph. GM & Ford are big news reverberate outside the City of Eddie Guest. :-) Carrol ^ CB: Well GM is only about the third largest company in the world now. I wonder if what's good for General Motors is still good for America. Way back in the thirties it was Alfred P. Sloan ( I think) who said GM is in the business of making money ,not cars. Nice slogan for the merger of industrial and finance capital as Finance Capital. Alfred P. Sloan - encyclopedia article about Alfred P. Sloan. Free ...encyclopedia article about Alfred P. Sloan. Alfred P. Sloan explanation. ... Alfred P. Sloan. Word: Word. ... encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Alfred%20P.%20Sloan - Alfred P. Sloan. 1875-1966. ... Alfred P. Sloan Foundation "Too often we fail to recognize. and pay tribute to the. creative spirit.". -Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. ... www.virtualology.com/virtualpubliclibrary/ halloffounders/automotivefounders/ALFREDPSLOAN.COM/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Alfred P. Sloan, Late Chairman of General Motors Corporation... The reason is that I have a famous relative, or at least my father and grandfather believed that he was our relative, namely Alfred P. Sloan. ... www.ishipress.com/al-sloan.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages Alfred P. Sloan Museum in Flint, MI - Details | MuseumStuff.comAlfred P. Sloan Museum details page from MuseumStuff.com, the web's leading guide to 1000's of museums worldwide. ... Alfred P. Sloan Museum. ... www.museumstuff.com/rec/org_20020201_10164.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages ^^ High anxiety for U.S. automakers Big summer sales needed; suppliers, analysts fret July 23, 2004 BY JEFFREY MCCRACKEN FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER About 60 degrees and six months ago, during the Detroit auto show, there was a feeling of hope and optimism that an improving economy and slew of new and redesigned vehicles -- Chevrolet Corvette, Ford minivan, Chrysler 300 sedan -- would combine to increase Detroit automakers' sales while slowing down the rebates and incentives that wreak havoc on profits. Now, just past the year's halfway point, as second-quarter financial results pour out from General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the area's largest auto suppliers, a new feeling is in the air: uncertainty. Or nervousness. Or concern. Whatever word is used to capture it, there is a definite sense that the second half of the year needs to go better than the first for Detroit's auto industry. Already, some are warning it won't. A number of Detroit's largest auto-parts makers -- such as Delphi Corp. and Visteon Corp. -- have told Wall Street they won't make as much as predicted in the third quarter or have given less-than-rosy projections for the rest of 2004. GM, too, gave the investors and analysts that cover them a cautious view of the year. "I think the real fear among these auto executives is that they only can get better auto sales with huge incentives. The automakers, like GM, misplaced their bets that better employment and a better economy would eliminate the need for these rebates and low-interest deals, and that hasn't been the case," said Diane Swonk, chief economist for Bank One Corp. There is concern that if July and August aren't blockbuster sales months for Detroit's three automakers -- especially GM -- they will have to slam on the brakes of vehicle production, which would cause a ripple effect across the industry and might push small suppliers into bankruptcy. The big fear: GM will need to idle some plants in the fourth quarter, and other automakers will follow suit. Already, GM's and Ford's plans for how many cars and trucks they will build from July through September are lower than they were last year by about 76,000 vehicles. Ford's third-quarter production plan calls for it to build 755,000 cars and trucks, the lowest third-quarter number in the automaker's history. GM's third-quarter production of 1.2 million vehicles is the lowest it has been since the 1990s and down about 4 percent from a year ago. GM and Ford will announce their production plans for the rest of the year Sept. 1, making that an important day in the immediate future of many Detroit suppliers. "There are quite a few suppliers around town that are watching to see what happens because they are so dependent on GM and the domestics. If GM decides to pull back a lot, that will send a message to the whole industry and have some scary ripples for some local suppliers," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of vehicle forecasting at J.D. Power and Associates, the market analysis firm. "Really, what Detroit needs is just a big, big sales month in July and August from the traditional Big Three." Schuster's firm recently lowered its production expectation for the rest of the year by about 100,000 cars and trucks. Schuster called that just a minor tweak. But noted it would have been lower, e
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
Charles Brown wrote: > > what is progressive economist take on ford and general motors releasng > info the other day indicating that each only made profits from > credit/lending operations... > michael hoover > > ^ > You must be reading Detroit newspapers in Ann Arbor, Michael. > It made the Chicago papers too; I can't remember now, but I think there was a brief story on it in the Bloomington Pantagraph. GM & Ford are big news reverberate outside the City of Eddie Guest. :-) Carrol
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
Wall Street analysts said they'd like to see GM -- as well as Ford -- make more money from selling cars and trucks. Ford is even more dependent than GM on its credit business, getting about 77 percent of its profits from there. "I think at both GM and Ford the reliance is a general concern. If you buy the stock of these companies, it's like you are buying a finance company that comes with an auto piece attached," said Daman Blakeney, an equity analyst for Victory Capital Management, which manages about $50 billion for investors. "They are supposed to be selling cars and making money at that." Worldwide, GM's profits on the sale of new cars and trucks rose to $529 million, up from $140 million a year ago. In North America, GM earned $328 million, up from $83 million a year ago. GM sales for the quarter grew 7 percent to $49.1 billion, up from $48.3 billion a year ago, largely because it sold more vehicles in Latin America and the Asian Pacific. GM continued to struggle in Europe, which has been a sore spot for years. GM had quarterly losses of $45 million, compared with a loss of $3 million a year ago. Devine said sales improved in Europe but GM's costs were too high, a signal GM may be preparing for more cuts on the continent. FULL: http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/gm22_20040722.htm
Query: Ford/General Motors
what is progressive economist take on ford and general motors releasng info the other day indicating that each only made profits from credit/lending operations... michael hoover ^ You must be reading Detroit newspapers in Ann Arbor, Michael. Charles
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
accounting for the profits of lending is the second blackest of the black arts (accounting for the profits of life assurers is the blackest). There are often very substantial gaps indeed between even the best accruals accounts and cash. If the debt ends up not being repaid, this earnings stream can be very volatile indeed, particularly if the collateral is a motor vehicle. watch yer eye would be my view, although the epithets "progressive" and "economist" apply to me only marginally at best. General Motors is something like the third biggest lender in the UK's "buy to let" (speculative housing investment) sector - nobody knows why. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Hoover Sent: 23 July 2004 18:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Query: Ford/General Motors what is progressive economist take on ford and general motors releasng info the other day indicating that each only made profits from credit/lending operations... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Query: Ford/General Motors
I think that this is very important. For me it signifies that the center of gravity of the economy is shifting in the direction of finance capital, except that I would include intellectual property as part of the nonmaterial properties that represent the core of finance capital. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Hoover Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Query: Ford/General Motors what is progressive economist take on ford and general motors releasng info the other day indicating that each only made profits from credit/lending operations... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Query: Ford/General Motors
what is progressive economist take on ford and general motors releasng info the other day indicating that each only made profits from credit/lending operations... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Chevez and Uribe (was: oil query)
Sorry for the delay. Our line is that it's a Very Good Thing. First, because the anti-Chavez forces in the U.S. Administration, Miami and Caracas want to spread, without evidence, the notion that the government of Venezuela is supporting the FARC, is a threat to its neighbors, etc. So, this sort of thing is good for us because we can point to it and say, what are you talking about? Venezuela is getting along fine with its neighbors. Second, because it's the policy of the anti-Chavez faction in the Administration to try to isolate Venezuela. So this sort of thing is a defeat for that policy. Finally, because its the policy of the Venezuelan government to promote regional economic integration, as opposed to FTAA-like integration with the U.S. So this represents a small victory for that policy. At 12:34 PM 7/16/2004 -0400, you wrote: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:34:12 -0400 Reply-To: PEN-L list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: PEN-L list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Dmytri Kleiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L] Chevez and Uribe (was: oil query) Hey, I'm a Canadian, living in Germany, so I'm not exactly "The American Public"... but if would inform me anyway, I would love to know what you make of the recent meeting between Chavez and Uribe. Thanks. -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Query (on Soviet philosophy)
Yo, I'm reading (in Russian) the book Marksizm i Utopizm (Marxism and Utopianism), published last year. It's an attempt to come to terms with Marxism as a scientific approach and as an ideology in the post-Soviet context and is quite interesting. Anyway, the author is one Teodor Ilich Oizerman (transliteration from Cyrillic). Has anybody heard of this guy? He was born in 1914 and seems to have written an awful lot in the Soviet era. Thanks! __ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
Re: oil query
i need to ask someone questions like "when analysts or journalists refer to millions of barrels of oil produced per day, what products are they typically including?" thanks in advance for any assistance. _ Usually used to mean petroleum, natural gas liquids, condensates.
Re: oil query
I'm not an oil analyst, but a good broker knows a little bit of everything ... "barrels per day", when used in that context, is usually "barrel of oil equivalent" (boe). BOE is a unit of energy, like BTUs. It's equal to about 6 billion joules, which is the energy you would release by burning a barrel of crude oil. The reason one talks in BOE is precisely the one which I think underlies your question; it's so you can put different petroleum products on an equal footing. Particularly useful when talking about the North Sea oil field, where you have a number of fields that produce both oil and natural gas. But I'd add the usual caveat ... a good broker knows a little bit of everything, but usually knows it wrong. So I will immediately demur to any genuine experts who reply. best dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Naiman Sent: 16 July 2004 17:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: oil query any oil experts on this list? or any referrals to same? i need to ask someone questions like "when analysts or journalists refer to millions of barrels of oil produced per day, what products are they typically including?" thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 (*Please note new suite number and telephone*) ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Chevez and Uribe (was: oil query)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:26:55PM -0400, Robert Naiman wrote: > -- > Robert Naiman > Senior Policy Analyst > Venezuela Information Office > 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 > Washington, DC 20005 > t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 > f. 202-347-8091 > (*Please note new suite number and telephone*) > ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: > The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American > public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the > FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. Hey, I'm a Canadian, living in Germany, so I'm not exactly "The American Public"... but if would inform me anyway, I would love to know what you make of the recent meeting between Chavez and Uribe. Thanks.
oil query
any oil experts on this list? or any referrals to same? i need to ask someone questions like "when analysts or journalists refer to millions of barrels of oil produced per day, what products are they typically including?" thanks in advance for any assistance. -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 (*Please note new suite number and telephone*) ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Re: Query from a correspondent
The Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1972 - gently at first, but more aggressively in 1973. The fed funds rate broke 10% in July 1973 for the first time ever. Inflation had been rising - from under 3% in mid-1972 to 6% a year later - and the monthly inflation rate was hitting an 8-10% annualized range in some months in 1973. So clearly the Fed wanted a recession, which officially began in November 1973. The oil shock no doubt made it worse, but the dynamics were already underway beforehand. Doug
Re: Query from a correspondent
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/04 5:42 PM >>> For some inexplicable reason I am cyber-debating some American social democrat. He insists that the 1974-75 oil shock caused the US recession and (implicitly) US decline from hegemony and the good days. We three all disagree with each other on many questions but I *think* that we all agree that this theory is ridiculous. In his magnum opus that appeared in New Left Review in 1998, Brenner dismisses this argument out of hand by noting that the recession began in 1973 so the oil shock argument doesn't even make sense. He only spends one line on this though, dismissing it out of hand. Does anybody know any other good sources that don't use much dogmatic rhetoric? <> been alota years since i read it but bluestone and harrison's 'great u-turn' may be useful re. above... -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Query from a correspondent
For some inexplicable reason I am cyber-debating some American social democrat. He insists that the 1974-75 oil shock caused the US recession and (implicitly) US decline from hegemony and the good days. We three all disagree with each other on many questions but I *think* that we all agree that this theory is ridiculous. In his magnum opus that appeared in New Left Review in 1998, Brenner dismisses this argument out of hand by noting that the recession began in 1973 so the oil shock argument doesn't even make sense. He only spends one line on this though, dismissing it out of hand. Does anybody know any other good sources that don't use much dogmatic rhetoric? -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: query: teaching undergrad micro?
The book is by Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, and Weisskopf and its title is
MICROECONOMICS IN CONTEXT. Its focus is to not just give the standard neoclassical
stuff but also alternative theories. It's not "radical" like Hahnel. Rather, it's more
sophisticated than the standard textbook. Thus it tells the student about MR=MC -- and
then about situations where marginal decision-making doesn't work.
jd
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Robert Naiman
Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 8:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: [PEN-L] query: teaching undergrad micro?
No doubt this question has been asked before. Is there a FAQ?
Anyway, here goes. This Fall I am teaching freshman undergrad micro at the
University of Illinois-Urbana. I have not taught this course before.
After some consultation with various folks, I have ordered Stiglitz' text,
and also Hahnel's (ABC's of Political Economy,) intending to use the second
as a supplement to the first. After I committed, I think I saw on the
heterodox econ web site that there is a text forthcoming associated with
Weisskopf, but my impression is that it is not out in the world yet.
Anyway, I would be happy to get any advice that anyone has to offer,
including any syllabus that anyone wants to share, and any ideas for fun
special projects/topics, etc. The set-up for this class is a bit
alternative, it's in a dorm in a program that was set up as a result of
student protests in the 70s, so I have a little bit of leeway.
- Robert Naiman
query: teaching undergrad micro?
No doubt this question has been asked before. Is there a FAQ? Anyway, here goes. This Fall I am teaching freshman undergrad micro at the University of Illinois-Urbana. I have not taught this course before. After some consultation with various folks, I have ordered Stiglitz' text, and also Hahnel's (ABC's of Political Economy,) intending to use the second as a supplement to the first. After I committed, I think I saw on the heterodox econ web site that there is a text forthcoming associated with Weisskopf, but my impression is that it is not out in the world yet. Anyway, I would be happy to get any advice that anyone has to offer, including any syllabus that anyone wants to share, and any ideas for fun special projects/topics, etc. The set-up for this class is a bit alternative, it's in a dorm in a program that was set up as a result of student protests in the 70s, so I have a little bit of leeway. - Robert Naiman
query on insurance industry
From a correspondent: I'm wondering if you know offhand a Marxist analysis of the recent rise in insurance premiums (as being due to bad investment as opposed to tort claims running wild). Also, do you know of a Marxist analysis of the insurance industry specifically? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: query: trickle-down economics
Krugman used dooh nibor or robin hood spelled backwards. On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:03:32AM -0400, nomi prins wrote: > Reverse-Robinhood? > > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, > James > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] query: trickle-down economics > > does anyone know of a good synonym for "trickle-down economics" besides > "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" or "horse and sparrow > economics"? > jd -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: query: trickle-down economics
Reverse-Robinhood? -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] query: trickle-down economics does anyone know of a good synonym for "trickle-down economics" besides "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" or "horse and sparrow economics"? jd
query: trickle-down economics
does anyone know of a good synonym for "trickle-down economics" besides "supply side economics" or "Reaganomics" or "horse and sparrow economics"? jd
Re: query: unemployment insurance.
here's something on current law: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_uicalc_index -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: query: unemployment insurance. where can I get data on the percentage of wages that would be replaced by unemployment insurance (for different types of workers and overall averages) over time in the US? jim devine
Re: query: unemployment insurance.
A new green book came out a month or two ago. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813 max -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: query: unemployment insurance. Jim: In the Green Book, i.e. the compedium of data produced by the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. They were doing them annually, then biennially, and now I think they haven't done one since 2001 (pending a longer-term consensus on welfare reform). But I think the data is there, and it is usually on line if you can't get a hard copy. You might also try to Bureau of Labor statistics website. Joel Blau Original Message: - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:02:35 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: query: unemployment insurance. where can I get data on the percentage of wages that would be replaced by unemployment insurance (for different types of workers and overall averages) over time in the US? jim devine mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: query: unemployment insurance.
Jim: In the Green Book, i.e. the compedium of data produced by the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. They were doing them annually, then biennially, and now I think they haven't done one since 2001 (pending a longer-term consensus on welfare reform). But I think the data is there, and it is usually on line if you can't get a hard copy. You might also try to Bureau of Labor statistics website. Joel Blau Original Message: - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:02:35 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: query: unemployment insurance. where can I get data on the percentage of wages that would be replaced by unemployment insurance (for different types of workers and overall averages) over time in the US? jim devine mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
query: unemployment insurance.
where can I get data on the percentage of wages that would be replaced by unemployment insurance (for different types of workers and overall averages) over time in the US? jim devine
Re: query: labor arbitrage
thanks. By the way, "labor arbitrage" is part of "the race to the bottom" or what I called "competitive austerity" in my 1983 REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS article. My concept was more political-economic, in that it also involved cutting of the social wage. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] query: labor arbitrage > > > Stephen Roach? > > http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040209-mon.html > > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:55:42PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: > > what's the name of the economist (left-Keynesian, > pessimistic, works for some big bokerage) who recently wrote > about "labor arbitrage"? where can I find his article? what > do people think of that article? > > Jim Devine > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >
Re: query: labor arbitrage
right. thanks. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 5/26/2004 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] query: labor arbitrage Stephen Roach? http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040209-mon.html On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:55:42PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: > what's the name of the economist (left-Keynesian, pessimistic, works for some big bokerage) who recently wrote about "labor arbitrage"? where can I find his article? what do people think of that article? > Jim Devine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: query: labor arbitrage
Stephen Roach? http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040209-mon.html On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 04:55:42PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: > what's the name of the economist (left-Keynesian, pessimistic, works for some big > bokerage) who recently wrote about "labor arbitrage"? where can I find his article? > what do people think of that article? > Jim Devine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
query: labor arbitrage
what's the name of the economist (left-Keynesian, pessimistic, works for some big bokerage) who recently wrote about "labor arbitrage"? where can I find his article? what do people think of that article? Jim Devine
Query on Marxian Anecdote
I wonder if anyone can (a) confirm/correct the following anecdote and (b) identify a source for it. I read it someplace long ago but no longer remember where. Shortly after one of Marx's vacations in Germany in which he had been luxuriously entertained by some of his aristocratic friends, someone in London noted that such pleasures would not be available in the socialist future, and asked whether Marx would enjoy living in that future. Marx's reply was that he would be dead by then. Carrol No, but did you hear that Fidel Castro is going to live to 140 ? Charles
Query on Marxian Anecdote
I wonder if anyone can (a) confirm/correct the following anecdote and (b) identify a source for it. I read it someplace long ago but no longer remember where. Shortly after one of Marx's vacations in Germany in which he had been luxuriously entertained by some of his aristocratic friends, someone in London noted that such pleasures would not be available in the socialist future, and asked whether Marx would enjoy living in that future. Marx's reply was that he would be dead by then. Carrol
Re: query: Kotlikoff
Larry K is an interestingly perverse case. He's done a lot of high-powered neo-classical micro re: public finance, but over the past decade got obsessed with "generational accounts." (Other devotees include Alan Auerbach and David Bradford, neither of whom are crazy.) He thinks of himself as a Democrat, even a liberal, but his GA leads to reactionary fiscal policy. The basic idea I think has some interest -- to consider consumption patterns by generation. In practice it comes out as reactioinary policy. Dean Baker did a number on him in an EPI report Robbing the Cradle? : A Critical Assessment of Generational Accounting Dean Baker As far as I can tell it's only for sale ($12). No free downloads. max - Original Message - From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:24 PM Subject: query: Kotlikoff Does anyone on pen-l know anything about Laurence Kotlikoff, who has a proposal to "reform" Social Security and Medicare? I heard him on the radio today, pushing his book, _The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future_ (written with Scott Burns). What are his proposals? what are the main (logical, empirical, methodological) problems with them? Max? from Amazon.com: Book Info Text takes readers on a guided tour of our generational imbalance and the coming demographic/fiscal collision. Discusses the baby boomers and their long retirement years, the increased taxes paid by the next generation, and the under-reported national debt. DLC: United States--Population--Economic aspects. Book Description In 2030, as 77 million baby boomers hobble into old age, walkers will outnumber strollers; there will be twice as many retirees as there are today but only 18 percent more workers. How will America handle this demographic overload? How will Social Security and Medicare function with fewer working taxpayers to support these programs? According to Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns, if our government continues on the course it has set, we'll see skyrocketing tax rates, drastically lower retirement and health benefits, high inflation, a rapidly depreciating dollar, unemployment, and political instability. The government has lost its compass, say Kotlikoff and Burns, and the current administration is heading straight into the coming generational storm. But don't panic. To solve a problem you must first understand it. Kotlikoff and Burns take us on a guided tour of our generational imbalance, first introducing us to the baby boomers-- their long retirement years and "the protracted delay in their departure to the next world." Then there's the "fiscal child abuse" that will double the taxes paid by the next generation. There's also the "deficit delusion" of the under-reported national debt. And none of this, they say, will be solved by any of the popularly touted remedies: cutting taxes, technological progress, immigration, foreign investment, or the elimination of wasteful government spending. So how can the United States avoid this demographic/fiscal collision? Kotlikoff and Burns propose bold new policies, including meaningful reforms of Social Security, and Medicare. Their proposals are simple, straightforward, and geared to attract support from both political parties. But just in case politicians won't take the political risk to chart a new direction, Kotlikoff and Burns also offer a "life jacket"-- guidelines for individuals to protect their financial health and retirement. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
query: Kotlikoff
Does anyone on pen-l know anything about Laurence Kotlikoff, who has a proposal to "reform" Social Security and Medicare? I heard him on the radio today, pushing his book, _The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future_ (written with Scott Burns). What are his proposals? what are the main (logical, empirical, methodological) problems with them? Max? from Amazon.com: Book Info Text takes readers on a guided tour of our generational imbalance and the coming demographic/fiscal collision. Discusses the baby boomers and their long retirement years, the increased taxes paid by the next generation, and the under-reported national debt. DLC: United States--Population--Economic aspects. Book Description In 2030, as 77 million baby boomers hobble into old age, walkers will outnumber strollers; there will be twice as many retirees as there are today but only 18 percent more workers. How will America handle this demographic overload? How will Social Security and Medicare function with fewer working taxpayers to support these programs? According to Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns, if our government continues on the course it has set, we'll see skyrocketing tax rates, drastically lower retirement and health benefits, high inflation, a rapidly depreciating dollar, unemployment, and political instability. The government has lost its compass, say Kotlikoff and Burns, and the current administration is heading straight into the coming generational storm. But don't panic. To solve a problem you must first understand it. Kotlikoff and Burns take us on a guided tour of our generational imbalance, first introducing us to the baby boomers-- their long retirement years and "the protracted delay in their departure to the next world." Then there's the "fiscal child abuse" that will double the taxes paid by the next generation. There's also the "deficit delusion" of the under-reported national debt. And none of this, they say, will be solved by any of the popularly touted remedies: cutting taxes, technological progress, immigration, foreign investment, or the elimination of wasteful government spending. So how can the United States avoid this demographic/fiscal collision? Kotlikoff and Burns propose bold new policies, including meaningful reforms of Social Security, and Medicare. Their proposals are simple, straightforward, and geared to attract support from both political parties. But just in case politicians won't take the political risk to chart a new direction, Kotlikoff and Burns also offer a "life jacket"-- guidelines for individuals to protect their financial health and retirement. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Query
to be honest the only way to get an answer to this sort of thing is to track down the bloke at the statistics agency who maintains the series and get him to take you through it line by line. Most of them are quite pleased that somebody took an interest. dd On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:07:12 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: I realize that my submissions generally don't measure up to the quality standards of the list and for that reason deserve to be ignored, but perhaps those in need of a little pro bono work might offer some enlightenment on the following perplexing matter. The Economic Research Service of the USDA produces an abundance of data on the condition of US agricultural production. I find particularly interesting that table on capital stock 1948-1999 which shows an approximate 50% increase in capital stock for the entire period, yet a real, and dramatic decline of some 33% between 1983 and 1999. Now this makes sense to me, given the "overweighted" portion of production value contributed by farms with sales greater than $1,000,000-- the ability of concentrated capital stock to be be smaller in volume, but denser in output and to "absorb" greater amounts of manufactured and farm based inputs. However, when looking at the DofC BEA NEA tables for investment in and net stock valuation of non-residential, private fixed investments for farms, such valuations show no decline but an increase for the 1983-1999 period. I'm having some difficulty reconciling the two, or even finding the paths of divergence. Has somebody encountered the same issue and perhaps found an explanation? Note to Sabri: The guy who knows what heteroskadastic (sp?) means doesn't understand obfuscation? That's precious.
Re: US health care query
And it is about 74 million who are uninsured at some point in any given year. Joel Blau Joel Wendland wrote: Hey PEN-L: I am looking for the current data on the number of Americans without health care insurance. Any ideas where this info can be found? With advance thanks, Seth Sandronsky The AFL-CIO's special report on jobs which came out last month cites the US Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2002 which was apparently publishe in September 2003; 43.6 million (and doesn't include figures on the underinsured). There must be a website. joel _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
Re: US health care query
Hey PEN-L: I am looking for the current data on the number of Americans without health care insurance. Any ideas where this info can be found? With advance thanks, Seth Sandronsky The AFL-CIO's special report on jobs which came out last month cites the US Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2002 which was apparently publishe in September 2003; 43.6 million (and doesn't include figures on the underinsured). There must be a website. joel _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
US health care query
Hey PEN-L: I am looking for the current data on the number of Americans without health care insurance. Any ideas where this info can be found? With advance thanks, Seth Sandronsky _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Query
I realize that my submissions generally don't measure up to the quality standards of the list and for that reason deserve to be ignored, but perhaps those in need of a little pro bono work might offer some enlightenment on the following perplexing matter. The Economic Research Service of the USDA produces an abundance of data on the condition of US agricultural production. I find particularly interesting that table on capital stock 1948-1999 which shows an approximate 50% increase in capital stock for the entire period, yet a real, and dramatic decline of some 33% between 1983 and 1999. Now this makes sense to me, given the "overweighted" portion of production value contributed by farms with sales greater than $1,000,000-- the ability of concentrated capital stock to be be smaller in volume, but denser in output and to "absorb" greater amounts of manufactured and farm based inputs. However, when looking at the DofC BEA NEA tables for investment in and net stock valuation of non-residential, private fixed investments for farms, such valuations show no decline but an increase for the 1983-1999 period. I'm having some difficulty reconciling the two, or even finding the paths of divergence. Has somebody encountered the same issue and perhaps found an explanation? Note to Sabri: The guy who knows what heteroskadastic (sp?) means doesn't understand obfuscation? That's precious.
Query
> "The British Labor Party during its pre-WWI socialist > phase owned tea plantations in the British colonies, Does anybody have any information or sources on this? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
query: "institutionalized" population
In the US Bureau of Labor Statistics current population survey, who counts as being part of the "Institutionalized" population and thus is excluded from the labor force? are prisoners who are paid to answer phones (etc.) part of the paid labor force and employment? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: query: "institutionalized" population
In the US Bureau of Labor Statistics current population survey, who counts as being part of the "Institutionalized" population and thus is excluded from the labor force? Are prisoners who are paid to answer phones (etc.) part of the paid labor force and employment? The US non-institutional population excludes the armed forces, transients, people on ships or difficult-to-measure people etc., and institutionalised people, i.e. prison inmates, nursing home guests, psychiatric patients, hospitalised people etc. The concept of the "paid labor force" suggests that prison labor should be included in surveys, but in practice they do not do it, in virtue of the institutional/non-institutional distinction and possibly also because of measurement problems. In previous posts, I have tried to show the quantitative implication of the derivations of the different populations definitions used. My personal philosophy has always been, that population analysis (demographic analysis) should try to give a picture of the characteristics of the whole population of a country at a point in time, or during an interval of time, and thus, I've previously tried to estimate the composition of the US population as a whole, in terms of real categories describing what they are doing or what their position is, i.e. children, working, unemployed, housewives, idling, retired, sickness beneficiary, criminal, institutionalised, and so on, working up to a more precise analysis of the real position of social classes. But usually American scholars don't seem to do that sort of thing, such empirical research is just "dirty" and they'd rather just work on an econometric model with a formula. I can give a very simple example: do you know the number or proportion of fulltime housewives or househusbands in the United States ? It's very difficult to actually find out reliable info about it, I mean I tried all over the place to get an estimate, but I couldn't find any, and I just had to guess more or less what it could be within the limits I can define. Yet, there are oodles and oodles of lefties, sociologists, therapists and society magazines and they're all talking about "housewives", "the politics of housework" and so on, blah blah, yet, nobody really knows how many fulltime housewives there actually are, what the significance of this is, and I think I would actually have to estimate this, via a procedure from existing Census data to create a benchmark, and then a formula, along the lines that if the number of females is N, the population size is S, the labour force is T and the employment rate is Q, then the total number of housewives will be such-and-such. I personally quite enjoy Erik Olin Wright's stuff because he actually gets empirical. There are some good scholars like that, like Edward Wolff, Bob Pollin, Thomas Weisskopf, Michael Yates, and so on, and plus of course your own good self and various PEN-Lers, who actually try to quantify and illustrate the objective picture of wealth and poverty in America, plus make the economic and social arguments, in a language people can understand. Prof. Perelman doesn't believe much in the quantification side of things, but actually, my own most powerful economic arguments defending Marx's basic idea are very much in terms of quantitative relations (but that's more about the world economy really). What this quantification means, is that we make the arguments more precise, and understand what is really feasible, what we can realise. Anybody can of course say the rich are too rich or the poor are too poor, but what we really want to know is, exactly what difference we could make to that situation, and how we could make it, in a way that advances our vision of a society fit for human beings to live in, and grow up in. If we have that knowledge, we no longer flipflop between saying "we cannot change anything" and "we can change everything" but we can identify a region within which change can occur, and specify what outcomes we seek given the values and aspirations that we have. It gets us out of the waffly middleclass postmodernist discourses, and relativises the arguments made referring to real experience. Personally, I have been criticised for my interest in statistics by socialists and Marxists for two decades now, and many Americans think statistics are nerdy, but I am quite recalcitrant and continue to believe in the value of statistical information. Ultimately I base that on Hegel's logic, because, if you think through Hegel's argument, it's clear that quantity and quality are not things you can disconnect from each other. Regards Jurriaan Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
economics query about indebtedness in US
Does anyone have recent estimates of the total debt structure of the United States ? My approximate estimates were as follows: Total debt held by households about $32 trillion Total debt held by business about $4.7 trillion Total debt held by state and local government about $1.5 trillion Total debt held by federal government about $3 trillion (gross federal debt $7 trillion) Total debt, United States $41.2 trillion, i.e. about four times GDP and about a fifth of that owing to foreign investors) J.
Re: query
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/19/04 12:10PM >>> could you mean the Repub. Harold Stassen? On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:05:59AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought > maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name > of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early > 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries > but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention > of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination > again again, for more than 2 decades? >Jim Devine <> stassen's first run for prez was in 48, he would eventually run 9 times, last 'attempt' was in 88 or 92, he died only a couple of years ago...michael hoover
Re: query
that's him! by today's standards, he was a liberal Democrat! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] query > > > could you mean the Repub. Harold Stassen? > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:05:59AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > > I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought > > maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What > is the name > > of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early > > 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in > the primaries > > but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory > and attention > > of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the > Party's nomination > > again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later > happened to > > the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to > > Howard Dean.) > > > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >
Re: query
Jerry Brown? Oh, no, that was later. Devine, James wrote: I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later happened to the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to Howard Dean.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: query
he was a Republican. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: query could you mean the Repub. Harold Stassen? On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:05:59AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought > maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name > of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early > 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries > but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention > of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination > again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later happened to > the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to > Howard Dean.) > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: query
could you mean the Repub. Harold Stassen? On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:05:59AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought > maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name > of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early > 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries > but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention > of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination > again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later happened to > the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to > Howard Dean.) > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
query
I am struggling to remember a name and it's bugging me, so I thought maybe bugging pen-l could help. (I tried googling...) What is the name of the Democratic Party candidate for President who ran in the early 1950s presidential primaries and was pretty successful in the primaries but lost -- and then, because seemingly because the glory and attention of the whole process had turned his head, ran for the Party's nomination again again, for more than 2 decades? (The same thing later happened to the comedian Pat Paulsen. Something like that may have happened to Howard Dean.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Query? Suspension of Indian Act and Governance Act?
Title: Message Dear Friends, I just got a call from the Rez at Brocket, Alberta and was told that last night there was a "Speech From the Crown" announcing the suspension of the Indian Act in Canada and also suspension of plans for the new Governance Act. The person who told me is most fluent in Blackfoot language and did not catch and understand all of it in English and some of what the eprson said is not translatable into English conceptwise. Any Canadians on the list who heard this speech last night? Would appreciate any details or references. Jim C. James M. Craven Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo-i'poyi Professor/Consultant,Economics;Business Division Chair Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. USA 98663 Tel: (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 Employer has no association with private/protected opinion "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell) "...every anticipation of results which are first to be proved seems disturbing to me...(Karl Marx, "Grundrisse") FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!
Re: Query -- book on JFK death?
It is the dad of the current spokeman. On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:16:10PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: > Back around September or so I read about a forthcoming book that would > assert that LBJ was behind the assassination of JFK. > > What made it most interesting was that the author was the father of > Bush's press spokesperson. Can't recall if it is the current one or the > previous one. > > But I haven't heard anything about this book since. > > Anybody know what happened? > > Gene Coyle -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Query -- book on JFK death?
Back around September or so I read about a forthcoming book that would assert that LBJ was behind the assassination of JFK. What made it most interesting was that the author was the father of Bush's press spokesperson. Can't recall if it is the current one or the previous one. But I haven't heard anything about this book since. Anybody know what happened? Gene Coyle
Query
> >The numbers seem bizarre. Two managers for every 3 workers? Quite. But many workers with a supervisory role are called "managers", In my last experience in the "real" work world, I was making so much overtime the company repositioned me as an exempt employee and gave me a raise. The hours and the work remained the same but my pay went down nearly half because I was no longer eligible for overtime pay. I did get "comp time", however, and I had about 100 hours of it when I got laid off after, of course, they had me lay off a bunch of other folks. The comp time went away (uncompensated) with my lay-off, but as far as I know, that time has never entered anyone's computation on the true cost of materials. I guess it's my hidden gift to capitalism. Dan Scanlan
Re: Query
> >The numbers seem bizarre. Two managers for every 3 workers? Quite. But many workers with a supervisory role are called "managers", and they make senior staff with long years of service a "manager" as well even if they aren't in charge of much, more a question of pay really. In which case the title of "manager" is more a feel-good concept or an acknowledgement of hierarchy than describing a real job functionality. J.
Re: Query
Not that bizarre. I'm a moron at research, but the very large company I
work for ("Sun is shining...Weather is sweet...Makes me want to
move...") has about seven layers of management on top of the grunts
(me). Lots of managers.
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
There was an odd little news bit in the business section of the local
paper. AT&T has frozen the pay for one year of its 43,000 "managers" (my
scare quotes). It goes on to say that AT&T has about 64,000 "workers."
The numbers seem bizarre. Two managers for every 3 workers?
Carrol
Re: Query
Carroll's figures seemed off to me also. AT&T is disappearing quickly. Here is some unformatted data. The figures represent data for the years: 1993 1994 1995 1996 (approx.) Management/Professional 149,515 145,884 151,224 N/A Occupational 162,677 153,195 148,107 N/A Total AT&T Employment 312,192 299,079 299,331 130,000 Carrol Cox wrote: > There was an odd little news bit in the business section of the local > paper. AT&T has frozen the pay for one year of its 43,000 "managers" (my > scare quotes). It goes on to say that AT&T has about 64,000 "workers." > > The numbers seem bizarre. Two managers for every 3 workers? > > Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Query
There was an odd little news bit in the business section of the local paper. AT&T has frozen the pay for one year of its 43,000 "managers" (my scare quotes). It goes on to say that AT&T has about 64,000 "workers." The numbers seem bizarre. Two managers for every 3 workers? Carrol
Re: query
Das Kapital Vol. 1 came out on 14 September 1867 in an edition of 1,000 copies, priced at 3 Taler and 10 groschen per copy. J.
query
I believe to have read somewhere that of the first German edition of Karl Marx, Das Kapital, only 100 (one hundred) copies were printed. Does anyone know about that? Thanks - GK _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Query
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/19/03 8:42 AM >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/03 5:32 PM >>> ago...florida has never been hotbed of either higher ed or public goods but this makes good private/exclusive - public/inclusive and shows how situation has become more 'liberal' and less 'democratic'... michael hoover above should have read: good private/exclusive - public/inclusive example
Re: Query
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/03 5:32 PM >>> Now you have students working 20+ hours and trying to get an education. I see high numbers dropping out due to stress -- They try to rush through to get it over with and cannot maintain the pace. The quality of education suffers & as our neoclassical friends would say, human capital deteriorates. Michael Perelman <> i inform students who now pay more than 40 cents of every tuition dollar out of pocket to attend state universities and community colleges in florida that out of pocket expense was 15 cents of every dollar when i entered 30 plus years ago...florida has never been hotbed of either higher ed or public goods but this makes good private/exclusive - public/inclusive and shows how situation has become more 'liberal' and less 'democratic'...in addition to increased wage labor that michael p. mentions above (and hours are way about 20 at community college where i teach), students pay for their education with loans, loans, and more loans (government guaranteed scam for lending industry)... keep the x in xmas, michael hoover
Re: Query
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/03 4:36 PM >>> A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: Do you know anybody critical of the US system of tuition fees who argues from an economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle <<<<<>>>>> check out: http://www.freehighered.org/
Re: Query
Also, didn't someone in Freeman and Card, "Small Differences that Matter" make the point that the higher tuition in the US relative to in Canada was one of the factors explaining the greater increase in income differentials in the US and also a reason for the lower percentage of the young getting post-secondary education in the US? The other large body of evidence comes from the growth literature of the 1960s and 1970s and the social rate of return to education in some cases as high as 15% (in addition to a private rate of return of around 10% if my memory serves me correctly) thus making it a very good investment for government If the private rate of return is 10%, with a marginal rate of income tax of 35%, the rate of return to the government on private expenditure is already 3.5% independent of sales and indirect taxes or of social return. Also, Denison's (or was it Fabricant's) studies showed that productivity growth largely due to increases in 'human capital' was the major source of economic growth in the US. Dorethy Walters studies for the Economic Council of Canada reported similar results. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Michael Perelman wrote: I have made the point. I think lots of people have. Now you have students working 20+ hours and trying to get an education. I see high numbers dropping out due to stress -- They try to rush through to get it over with and cannot maintain the pace. The quality of education suffers & as our neoclassical friends would say, human capital deteriorates. On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:36:07PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: Do you know anybody critical of the US system of tuition fees who argues from an economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Query
I'd try Barbara Miner in Milwaukee. If she doesn't know herself, she will surely know someone who does. Joel Blau Eugene Coyle wrote: A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: Do you know anybody critical of the US system of tuition fees who argues from an economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle
Re: Query
I have made the point. I think lots of people have. Now you have students working 20+ hours and trying to get an education. I see high numbers dropping out due to stress -- They try to rush through to get it over with and cannot maintain the pace. The quality of education suffers & as our neoclassical friends would say, human capital deteriorates. On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:36:07PM -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: > A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: > > Do you know anybody critical of the US system of tuition fees who > argues from an > economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public > good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise > benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. > > Any thoughts? > > Gene Coyle > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Query
A friend passed along this query from a European correspondent: Do you know anybody critical of the US system of tuition fees who argues from an economic point of view: i.e. who refers to higher education as public good? We need to be backed up by critics from abroad. Otherwise benchmark with the US will lead to adopting your system. Any thoughts? Gene Coyle
Re: Questions about California Budget Crisis query
The most obvious question would be how the pain from the cuts will be distributed. The state university system will cut enrollment to make the budget cuts work, but you can imagine who will be left out in to cold. In terms of disabilities, you might ask what expendiures they will make that will help the state to take advantage of the productive potential of the disabled. On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:11:45PM -0800, Doyle Saylor wrote: > Hello All, > Our radio program, Pushing Limits, is going to feature two budget analysts > on the Schwarzenegger budget. However, our collective's budget expert is > going out of town and can't co-host that night. So I thought I would ask > for some economic help from Pen-L. What would you ask these people? They > are pretty knowledgeable. We have a 30 minute program. So we have to pack > a lot into a short time. > > Any help would be appreciated. > thanks, > Doyle -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions about California Budget Crisis query
Hello All, Our radio program, Pushing Limits, is going to feature two budget analysts on the Schwarzenegger budget. However, our collective's budget expert is going out of town and can't co-host that night. So I thought I would ask for some economic help from Pen-L. What would you ask these people? They are pretty knowledgeable. We have a 30 minute program. So we have to pack a lot into a short time. Any help would be appreciated. thanks, Doyle
Re: query: "good will"
Macleod, H. D. 1855. Theory and Practice of Banking, 2d ed. (London: Longmans and Green, 1866) was the first to treat goodwill as capital. "The Right to receive the future profits of the business, is a property quite separate and distinct and distinct from the house or shop, and the actual goods in them Thrale, the great brewer, appointed Johnson one of his executors. In that capacity it became his business to sell the business. When the sale was about to go on, says Boswell -- "Johnson appeared bustling about, with an inkhorn and pen in his button-hole, likes an exciseman, and on being asked what he really considered to be the value of the property which was to be disposed of, answered -- 'We are not here to sell a parcel of vats and boilers, but the öPotentialityò of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice'." nomi prins wrote: > Good Will, which is treated as a balance sheet asset, is technically the > excess of the purchase price over the acquired company's book value of > its equity balances ((primarily retained earnings and capital stock > (from an accounting standpoint), and sometimes including treasury stock > if the company being acquired has any, and all the same of the company's > subsidiaries and minority interests if the company has any)) at the time > of acquisition. > > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, > James > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] query: "good will" > > how is "good will" measured by accountants? is it simply the difference > between the stock-market valuation of a company and the reproduction > cost of tangible assets? > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: query: "good will"
Good Will, which is treated as a balance sheet asset, is technically the excess of the purchase price over the acquired company's book value of its equity balances ((primarily retained earnings and capital stock (from an accounting standpoint), and sometimes including treasury stock if the company being acquired has any, and all the same of the company's subsidiaries and minority interests if the company has any)) at the time of acquisition. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] query: "good will" how is "good will" measured by accountants? is it simply the difference between the stock-market valuation of a company and the reproduction cost of tangible assets? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
query: "good will"
how is "good will" measured by accountants? is it simply the difference between the stock-market valuation of a company and the reproduction cost of tangible assets? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production functions -clarification-]
Dear James: --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I agree: Marx was "deliberately" abstracting in a > way that (he thought) reflected the actual > process under capitalism. In my very short précis, I > was only summarizing one part of his > approach and its actual application. I was in no way > endorsing Cohen or Thernborn's > interpretation of anything. I didn't mean that you endorse Cohen or Thernborn's interpretation of anything. Maybe this has to do with my yet-clumsy english and the format (and velocity of production) of this messages. I just wanted to stress how far scholars like Cohen and Thernborn have gone with the interpretation of the Marxian concept of profuctive powers, which I interpret are only *productive powers of (concrete) labor*. Thank you again for your comments, they are very helpful. Matías ¡Ayudá a los chicos navegando! En noviembre, Yahoo! dona un plato de comida por cada usuario que nevegue gratis con Yahoo! Conexión. Conectate ya en http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Marx "abstraction" II [Was: Query: critique of production functions -clarificati
Dear Matías: Nowhere did I say that the production function describes the value equation. I said instead that it refers to "the material substratum" of the capitalist value equation. The material substratum of value is use value. By "physical inputs" I mean concrete labor power and means of production: ability to work and accumulated wealth ready to produce new use values. By "physical outputs," I mean use values. The production function refers to use-value production. Exercised labor power here is obviously concrete useful labor. By itself, the production function is a description of the physical process of use-value production. It is not, as such, *economic* analysis. It's a description of technical production possibilities. Such description is a necessary starting point for economic analysis proper. Whatever our assessment of its scientific standing, theoretical microeconomics clearly distinguishes between production possibilities (the use-value side) and cost (the value side). But we cannot really understand the concept of a production function without getting duly acquainted with its specific uses in theoretical economics. There is no way to understand it without picking at least one field of applications (e.g., trade theory) and seriously working through the models. "There is no royal road to science." In principle, there's nothing that prevents you from dealing with the "heterogeneity of labour" in a production function. You can plug as many arguments as you can handle. You "resist to call concrete labor a physical 'input'." That's of course your prerogative. IMO, it matters little what terms we prefer -- unless we think that we live in a niche detached from the world other economists inhabit. Terms have a degree of social objectivity. There are terms they use and terms they don't use. Of course, we may try and propose new terms and new meaning for old terms, but it's not up to us whether they'll catch. Marx did not invent all the terms he used (e.g., value, price, profit, cost, rent, etc.). He took them as he found them. He scrutinized them and interpreted them in the context they were used. He explained their substantive content -- thus telling apart the "rational kernel" from the "irrational shell." You ask how to deal with nature in the production function. Nature is a means of production to the extent it is the spatial locus of production, supplies some production branches with raw subjects and instruments of labor, and provides geological, biological, etc. basis for certain types of production (farming, fishing, mining, etc.). (Marx, Capital, vol. I, part 4, chapter 7.) It is thus a physical input or, if you prefer, a set of physical inputs. There is nothing "stupid" or "absurd" about this. Capital exists as productive capital, in the form of means of production and labor power. (Capital, vol. II, part I). That is what underlies the conflation of capital and its productive form (means of production). That's not Schumpeter. That goes as far back as -- at least -- Colonel Torrens. Capital does "belong to the worlds of Nature, concrete labor or both." In its irrational, superficial aspect, it does: the "trinity formula." (Capital, vol. III, part 7, chapter 48.) But, to be fair, the production function does not imply a confusion between capital as self-expanding value and its form as means of production. Just because economists use the customary term "capital" to refer to means of production doesn't mean that the term denotes values as opposed to use values. In the context of the analysis, that is clear enough for anyone who cares to note. Again, the production function is clearly about use-value production. Therefore, the notions of productivity (total, marginal, average) derived from it are all technical (as opposed to social) -- they are use-value to use-value ratios. In the absence of externalities in production, the economic element enters the analysis only when the prices of inputs and outputs are introduced. We cannot *assume* that Marx anticipated everything, that his critique refutes what economists have done or are doing after him. We need to *prove* it. You say: "I think that if we accept the Marxian concept of value, and therefore the reduction of concrete labor to abstract labor and so on, the very concept of production function is at risk." What do you mean? Jim Devine recently mentioned Hal Varian's book. Varian's micro theory book, first chapter, provides a description of production possibilities (the production function is just one way of presenting the production possibilities). Another good reference is Andreu Mas Colell's micro theory book, chapter 5. Julio _ ¿Estás buscando un auto nuevo? http://latino.msn.com/autos/
Re: Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production functions -clarification-]
I agree: Marx was "deliberately" abstracting in a way that (he thought) reflected the actual process under capitalism. In my very short précis, I was only summarizing one part of his approach and its actual application. I was in no way endorsing Cohen or Thernborn's interpretation of anything. Though the actual process of capital clearly leads to the abstraction described, it does not yet mean that the "organic composition of capital" is the same in all sectors. Thus the realm of "capital in general" is not identical to that of "many capitals" and the underlying reality of capitalism explicated in volume I of CAPITAL does not leap out when one simply examines the "realm of appearances" described in volume III. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Matías Scaglione [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production > functions -clarification-] > > > Dear James: > > On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you wrote: > > > In order to understand > > capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately > > and clearly abstracts from the differences among > > heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and > > means of production. He uses the "acid of > > abstraction" to clarify the nature of class > > relations and exploitation. > > I disagree. I interpret that Marx is not > "deliberately" abstracting the differences among > heterogenous use-values and concrete labours, but > describing an abstraction, a "reduction" that actually > occurs through exchange (Cf. Isaak Rubin), in a > "social process", in "the capitalist mode of > production". The values of the commodities are > "realized" through exchange, and so the substance of > value, the expenditure of simple human labor. >" ...by equating their different products to each > other in exchange as values, they equate their > different kinds of labour as human labour. They do > this without being aware of it." (Capital I (Penguin > Ed., p. 166) >"The production of commodities must be fully > developed before the scientific conviction emerges, > from experience itself, that all the different kinds > of private labor... are continually being reduced to > the quantitative proportions in which society requires > them. The reason for this reduction is that in the > midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange > relations between products, the labour-time socially > necessary to produce them asserts itself as a > regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of > gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapse > on top of him."(C. p. 168) >Marx is not just starting here with his > clarification of "the nature of class relations and > exploitation", as your wrote, but also developing the > concept of form of value, which for him is crucial in > his book and embodies "the whole secret of the money > form and thereby, in nuce,of all burgeois forms of the > product of labour" (Marx to Engels, june 22 1867). Of > course this opens discussion on the role and validity > of Marx's theory of value, but that is an issue that > is of course beyond this email (but not beyond our > argument). > > > > It's presumed that the output of use-values > > increases with both labor-power hired (and the > > intensity of the labor process) and with the > > productiveness of labor. The latter rises with the > > technical composition of capital, an effort to > > measure the "capital intensity" of production. > > Regarding the production of material wealth, i.e. > use-values, and the so-called "productivity", I think > that we need a benchmark here, and such benchmark is > the amount of use-values that concrete useful labour > achieve in the same length of time. As Marx clearly > put it, the expression "productive power" > [produktivkraft] means "of course... the productive > power of concrete useful labor; in reality this > determines only the degree of effectiveness of > productive activity directed towards a given purpose > within a ginver period of time." (C. p. 137) Here MArx > is clearly following the Smithian concept of > "productive powers of labor" -Wealth of Nations, book > I- and Ricardo, although he also assigns "productive > powers" to the land. Marx defines explicitly what > determ
Re: Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production functions -clarification-]
I agree to Scaglione. This process through which the diverse particular works are changed result in a process of "real abstraction". An action carried through for the acts of the people in society. One is not about reflective results. / Mário - Original Message - From: "Matías Scaglione" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:06 AM Subject: Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production functions -clarification-] Dear James: On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you wrote: > In order to understand > capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately > and clearly abstracts from the differences among > heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and > means of production. He uses the "acid of > abstraction" to clarify the nature of class > relations and exploitation. I disagree. I interpret that Marx is not "deliberately" abstracting the differences among heterogenous use-values and concrete labours, but describing an abstraction, a "reduction" that actually occurs through exchange (Cf. Isaak Rubin), in a "social process", in "the capitalist mode of production". The values of the commodities are "realized" through exchange, and so the substance of value, the expenditure of simple human labor. " ...by equating their different products to each other in exchange as values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labour. They do this without being aware of it." (Capital I (Penguin Ed., p. 166) "The production of commodities must be fully developed before the scientific conviction emerges, from experience itself, that all the different kinds of private labor... are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. The reason for this reduction is that in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations between products, the labour-time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapse on top of him."(C. p. 168) Marx is not just starting here with his clarification of "the nature of class relations and exploitation", as your wrote, but also developing the concept of form of value, which for him is crucial in his book and embodies "the whole secret of the money form and thereby, in nuce,of all burgeois forms of the product of labour" (Marx to Engels, june 22 1867). Of course this opens discussion on the role and validity of Marx's theory of value, but that is an issue that is of course beyond this email (but not beyond our argument). > It's presumed that the output of use-values > increases with both labor-power hired (and the > intensity of the labor process) and with the > productiveness of labor. The latter rises with the > technical composition of capital, an effort to > measure the "capital intensity" of production. Regarding the production of material wealth, i.e. use-values, and the so-called "productivity", I think that we need a benchmark here, and such benchmark is the amount of use-values that concrete useful labour achieve in the same length of time. As Marx clearly put it, the expression "productive power" [produktivkraft] means "of course... the productive power of concrete useful labor; in reality this determines only the degree of effectiveness of productive activity directed towards a given purpose within a ginver period of time." (C. p. 137) Here MArx is clearly following the Smithian concept of "productive powers of labor" -Wealth of Nations, book I- and Ricardo, although he also assigns "productive powers" to the land. Marx defines explicitly what determines the "productive power of labor": "it is determined amongst other things by the worker's average degree skill, the level of development of science and its technological application, the social organization of the process of production, the extent and effectiveness of the means of production, and the conditions found in the natural environment". It should be stressed that throught Capital I Marx uses the expression "productive powers" in this sense, and not as Goran Thernborn and G.A. Cohen, among other, wrongly interpret, assigning "productive powers" to **things**, that at the sime time, as Cohen incredibly argues, ARE productive powers. Nonsense. My query about a critique of production functions goes in this direction. That is why I am interested in a critique of the very concept of production functions. Julio Huato wrongly believes, if I understant his email, that I am looking for a rejection of this "concept". What I am trying to find
Marx "abstraction" II [Was: Query: critique of production functions -clarification-]
Dear Julio: The line of my argument is very similar to the comment I sent to James Devine. You wrote: > As Jim Devine wrote, Marx's description of the > process of production in > Capital (vol. I, part III) is akin to this idea. > After all, the material > substratum of the capitalist value equation, w = c + > v + s, is precisely > some relationship between physical outputs and > physical inputs. Without a > physical link between inputs and outputs, how do we > tie the value of outputs > to the value of inputs (rates of exploitation, > profit rates) or the values > of inputs to each other (capital composition)? Following Marx, what determines the magnitude of value of the commodities is the quantity or time of socially necessary labor for its production, and this labor is not concrete but "abstract" labor, and is realized through exchange. When you talk abouth physical inputs you are talking about concrete labor. So the outputs resulting of the process of production (in which Nature is the mother, as William Petty says) are use-values. (In the market they are commodities and, therefore, also values) But which are the physical inputs? I resist to call concrete labor a physical "input", but let's accept this terminology. As Marx says, use values are the result not also of concrete labor but also of nature. So assuming we can deal with the heterogeneity of labour, how can we deal with "nature" (this seem stupid or absurd, but let me continue). Capital is a physical input (as Schumpeter decided it)? Capital belong to the worlds of Nature, concrete labor or both? I think that if we accept the Marxian concept of value, and therefore the reduction of concrete labor to abstract labor and so on, the very concept of production function is at risk. Matías ¡Ayudá a los chicos navegando! En noviembre, Yahoo! dona un plato de comida por cada usuario que nevegue gratis con Yahoo! Conexión. Conectate ya en http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Marx "abstraction" [was Query: critique of production functions -clarification-]
Dear James: On Marx's use of "abstraction" in Capital I you wrote: > In order to understand > capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately > and clearly abstracts from the differences among > heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and > means of production. He uses the "acid of > abstraction" to clarify the nature of class > relations and exploitation. I disagree. I interpret that Marx is not "deliberately" abstracting the differences among heterogenous use-values and concrete labours, but describing an abstraction, a "reduction" that actually occurs through exchange (Cf. Isaak Rubin), in a "social process", in "the capitalist mode of production". The values of the commodities are "realized" through exchange, and so the substance of value, the expenditure of simple human labor. " ...by equating their different products to each other in exchange as values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labour. They do this without being aware of it." (Capital I (Penguin Ed., p. 166) "The production of commodities must be fully developed before the scientific conviction emerges, from experience itself, that all the different kinds of private labor... are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. The reason for this reduction is that in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations between products, the labour-time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a regulative law of nature. In the same way, the law of gravity asserts itself when a person's house collapse on top of him."(C. p. 168) Marx is not just starting here with his clarification of "the nature of class relations and exploitation", as your wrote, but also developing the concept of form of value, which for him is crucial in his book and embodies "the whole secret of the money form and thereby, in nuce,of all burgeois forms of the product of labour" (Marx to Engels, june 22 1867). Of course this opens discussion on the role and validity of Marx's theory of value, but that is an issue that is of course beyond this email (but not beyond our argument). > It's presumed that the output of use-values > increases with both labor-power hired (and the > intensity of the labor process) and with the > productiveness of labor. The latter rises with the > technical composition of capital, an effort to > measure the "capital intensity" of production. Regarding the production of material wealth, i.e. use-values, and the so-called "productivity", I think that we need a benchmark here, and such benchmark is the amount of use-values that concrete useful labour achieve in the same length of time. As Marx clearly put it, the expression "productive power" [produktivkraft] means "of course... the productive power of concrete useful labor; in reality this determines only the degree of effectiveness of productive activity directed towards a given purpose within a ginver period of time." (C. p. 137) Here MArx is clearly following the Smithian concept of "productive powers of labor" -Wealth of Nations, book I- and Ricardo, although he also assigns "productive powers" to the land. Marx defines explicitly what determines the "productive power of labor": "it is determined amongst other things by the worker's average degree skill, the level of development of science and its technological application, the social organization of the process of production, the extent and effectiveness of the means of production, and the conditions found in the natural environment". It should be stressed that throught Capital I Marx uses the expression "productive powers" in this sense, and not as Goran Thernborn and G.A. Cohen, among other, wrongly interpret, assigning "productive powers" to **things**, that at the sime time, as Cohen incredibly argues, ARE productive powers. Nonsense. My query about a critique of production functions goes in this direction. That is why I am interested in a critique of the very concept of production functions. Julio Huato wrongly believes, if I understant his email, that I am looking for a rejection of this "concept". What I am trying to find is a serious critique of the concepts behind the "forms" (this is a sarcasm) of neoclassical economics. For instance, I still cannot find what the letter k stands for, I still cannot find the concept of capital, just to put an example. I presume that the conceptual underdevelopment of the process of capitalist production in neoclassical economics certainly reveals an irrational development of knowlege since the demise of the critical version of political economy achieved by Marx. Matías ¡Ayudá a los chicos navegando! En noviembre, Yahoo! dona un plato de comida por cada usuario que nevegue gratis con Yahoo! Conexión. Conectate ya en http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Re: Query: critique of production functions -clarification-
What production function do we reject? And on what grounds?
IMO, Anwar Shaikh's claim is that fitting an homothetic production function
on aggregate data is arbitrary. As they'd say in econometrics, there's an
identification problem because such data don't allow to single out the
parameters. The information in the data doesn't sufficiently tie the
structure imposed on the data. But that's a critique of econometrics, a
critique of an estimation method, or a critique of the particular
conclusions drawn by Solow from his estimation exercises. IMHO, that is not
a critique of the concept of a production function. IMO, Shaikh does not
claim otherwise.
In general, irrespective of its applications, the underlying idea of a
production function (or, more generally, a transformation function) is that
there is a definite relationship between the physical inputs and outputs of
production. In its more general sense, the concept includes a definite
relationship among the physical inputs (substitutability).
As Jim Devine wrote, Marx's description of the process of production in
Capital (vol. I, part III) is akin to this idea. After all, the material
substratum of the capitalist value equation, w = c + v + s, is precisely
some relationship between physical outputs and physical inputs. Without a
physical link between inputs and outputs, how do we tie the value of outputs
to the value of inputs (rates of exploitation, profit rates) or the values
of inputs to each other (capital composition)?
That this relationship between physical inputs and outputs is modeled as a
convex mapping, a twice-differentiable function, etc. is just convenient
abstraction. Unless we are against economic analysis in general, we don't
reject abstraction in general. We reject specific cases of abstraction
because of specific reasons. Again, as Jim Devine says, Marx talks about
labor power and other use values in general as if aggregation posed no
problem. E.g., in Capital (vol. II), he has two departments -- one
producing "means of production" and the other "means of consumption."
The uses of the production function in economic analysis are many. To name
a few: firm theory, general equilibrium theory, growth theory, and empirical
applications of growth theory.
Perhaps I don't understand the essence of the Cambridge (UK) critique of
"aggregate capital," but if by that they mean that it is not possible to
"aggregate" different types of means of production because different
physical qualities are irreducible, then I say like Marx: you and I may not
be able to "aggregate" them, but the market does it all the time -- and so
do the BEA, the BLS, etc. Do the statistical agencies have a problem
keeping track of weights and changes in input and output quality? They sure
do. But they manage.
If the argument is that the implicit weights (prices) entail smuggling a
particular social structure (capitalism) in the guise of the technical
conditions of production, then we reply that they fail to distinguish
between what Marx called "the ground-work for the quantitative determination
of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of
labour" and the "form of commodity" assumed by the product of labor. Prices
are social expressions of labor time. "In all states of society, the
labour-time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must
necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal
interest in different stages of development." (Capital, vol. I, part 1,
chapter 4.)
Whether the loss of information that results from aggregation is too much to
bear is something that depends on the problem one is trying to solve. For
instance, Marx sets to pin down the general "laws of motion" of the
capitalist mode of production. Does the "aggregation problem" entail so
high a distortion as to render his main conclusions invalid? I doubt that.
It seems to me that the reason why the Cambridge critique has been ignored
is not only that the establishment is unresponsive to criticism, but also
(mainly) that the capital critique does not really address the problem that
growth theorists are trying to solve. To prove that the production
function, as a concept, doesn't fit economic analysis as one thinks it
should be conducted is not hard to do. The challenge is to show that one's
type of economic analysis is superior to theirs' and that it can give more
meaningful results at the same or lower analytical cost.
In the context of growth *theory*, the production function is simply a
transformation from stocks ("capital" or the "capital-labor ratio") into
flows ("saving," "output," etc.). For the most part, the concern of growth
theory is to supply testable propositions for empirical work on long-run
cross-sectional international comparisons of economic performance. There
have been very few (and judged by the attention paid to them, not very
successful) attempts to calibrate growth models to simulate the long-run
performance
Re: Query: critique of production functions -clarification-
It's interesting that in some ways, Marx's analysis of production in volume I of CAPITAL is similar to the neoclassical notion of an _aggregate_ production function, which is even worse than a micro-level production function. He largely ignores the qualitative differences amongst different types of labor-power and labor, while doing the same for differences amongst types of means of production. It's presumed that the output of use-values increases with both labor-power hired (and the intensity of the labor process) and with the productiveness of labor. The latter rises with the technical composition of capital, an effort to measure the "capital intensity" of production. He often uses the microcosm of the English cotton textile industry to represent the whole. (One thing that's missing is the neoclassical notion of diminishing returns in production, which Marx rightly sees as applying only in agriculture and similar industries.) Of course, Marx's method isn't the madness of neoclassical economics. In order to understand capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately and clearly abstracts from the differences among heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and means of production. He uses the "acid of abstraction" to clarify the nature of class relations and exploitation. In volume II, he brings in differences amongst types of industries, while in volume III, he examines the impact of this kind of heterogeneity. Since he never wrote his planned book on Wage Labor, the heterogeneity of labor-power isn't examined seriously. In volume III, bringing in the heterogeneity of industries and means of production results in the so-called "transformation problem," of what I term the "disaggregation problem". As Amit Bhaduri pointed out in 1969, this "problem" is mathematically akin to the Cambridge Capital controversy that knocked a big hole in the neoclassical theory of the aggregate production function (a hole that the neoclassicals have largely ignored). Jim Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Matías Scaglione [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions > -clarification- > > > Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference > to Shaikh's work. I should have warned you that I knew > this paper, and that the very few critiques of > productions functions I have found led to this paper. > As I mentioned in my first mail, I am now not looking > for immanent critiques of neoclassical production > function (like the Shaikh paper), but trying to find > out if some (let us put it plain) Marxist author > confront the concept of production function with > Marxian theory, in particular Marx's definition of > "productive power of labor" (Produktivkraft der > Arbeit) -commonly confused by "historical > materialists" as just "productive powers" or > "productive forces", or, worst, "forces of > production"- and how capital appears to have such > productive powers in the production process (see > chapter on cooperation, Capital Volume I). > > Thanks again for your help, > > Matías > > > > > Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión > 4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo > Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar >
Re: Query: critique of production functions and productive forces
The conceptual problem in economic theory is that Marx's concept of "productive powers of labour" contains an irreducibly extra-economic aspect, namely the social co-operation of labour based on a specific division of labour, which cannot be valued precisely in advance of sale of output, and whose precise contribution to the value of output is difficult to estimate. This is made clear by Marx in an unpublished manuscript "On Political Economy" which was published by Dietz only in 1976-1982, where he notes that: "The division of labour is a special, specific, more developed form of co-operation... In simple co-operation it is just the joint work of many, who implement this work. In the division of labour the co-operation of many workers is under the command of Capital, and produce the different parts of the same commodities, in which each special part requires a special task, a special operation and each worker... only implements a special operation." (MEGA 3.1, p. 237-238). For a discussion, see Ernest Mandel, Kontroversen um "Das Kapital" (Berlin: Dietz, 1991), p. 300f. In bourgeois theory, this aspect of the productive powers of labour is seen exclusively as a management attribute, management monopolises it. In other words, co-operation is something which has to be organised and the ability for that is not inherent in the worker himself, the worker cannot organise himself, he must be organised, otherwise we would be talking socialism. For the worker, the division of labour must be technical, the social aspect is embodied in the manager. Management theory therefore seeks to arrive at those concepts which, if implemented, organise the worker to promote the production of maximum surplus-value, and to implement those concepts in managing the workers. But it is very difficult to generalise about management, because specific use-values are involved and specific types of people, and it is very difficult to estimate and value the specific contribution of management to output. Hence, a lot of management theory literature has a rather waffly character, since good management depends a lot on the personal characteristics of the manager and his ability to relate to people. Because these days politicians act like CEO's, political discussion also becomes waffly. Nevertheless, Capital acknowledges the "productive function" of management, and pays management gigantic salaries in acknowledgement of this productive function. The question sometimes arises, who will manage the managers ? But of course you can pay yourself extra to be a cut above the rest, and so the question can be solved. When I flew from Chicago to Amsterdam recently, a portfolio manager who managed the incomes of corporate executives, told me that the chief of Hewlett Packard earnt something like a quarter million dollars, or half a million dollars (I don't remember which), and then that money had to be invested and she paid somebody else to invest it. I asked what he thought of her management style, but he considered her strategy wasn't very good. The pay was good though. Jurriaan - Original Message - From: "Matías Scaglione" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:32 AM Subject: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions -clarification- Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference to Shaikh's work. I should have warned you that I knew this paper, and that the very few critiques of productions functions I have found led to this paper. As I mentioned in my first mail, I am now not looking for immanent critiques of neoclassical production function (like the Shaikh paper), but trying to find out if some (let us put it plain) Marxist author confront the concept of production function with Marxian theory, in particular Marx's definition of "productive power of labor" (Produktivkraft der Arbeit) -commonly confused by "historical materialists" as just "productive powers" or "productive forces", or, worst, "forces of production"- and how capital appears to have such productive powers in the production process (see chapter on cooperation, Capital Volume I). Thanks again for your help, Matías Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión 4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Query: critique of production functions -clarification-
Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference to Shaikh's work. I should have warned you that I knew this paper, and that the very few critiques of productions functions I have found led to this paper. As I mentioned in my first mail, I am now not looking for immanent critiques of neoclassical production function (like the Shaikh paper), but trying to find out if some (let us put it plain) Marxist author confront the concept of production function with Marxian theory, in particular Marx's definition of "productive power of labor" (Produktivkraft der Arbeit) -commonly confused by "historical materialists" as just "productive powers" or "productive forces", or, worst, "forces of production"- and how capital appears to have such productive powers in the production process (see chapter on cooperation, Capital Volume I). Thanks again for your help, Matías Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión 4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Re: Query: critique of production functions
OK, Jurriaan; you want the whole package! Here it is: Palgrave entry: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/pal7.pdf Original 1974 article: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/humbug.pdf Solow's rejoinder (Anwar's postcript to his own 1980 article --a chapter in Ed Nell's book-- responds to this rejoinder): http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/solow.pdf Jurriaan Bendien wrote: He actually wrote two articles on it. Maybe in the New Palgrave dictionary of economics, or another dictionary ? J. - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions Shaikh, AM, (1974). "Laws of Algebra and Laws of Production: The Humbug Production Function", Review of Economics and Statistics, 61: 115-20. (1980). On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:45:23AM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: See Prof. Anwar Shaikh's articles on the "humbug production function" (not to be confused with the Cobb-Douglas production function). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Query: critique of production functions
http://growthconf.ec.unipi.it/papers/Felipe.pdf AGGREGATION IN PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS: WHAT APPLIED ECONOMISTS SHOULD KNOW Abstract: This paper surveys the theoretical literature on aggregation of production functions (e.g., Klein, Leontief, Nataf, Gorman, Fisher, Sato, etc.) from the point of view of the applied economist. The most important conclusions of this literature are summarized, and the problems that derive from incorrect aggregation that economists should be aware of are discussed. The most important result is that the conditions under which an aggregate production function can be derived from micro production functions are so stringent that it is difficult to believe that actual economies satisfy them. Aggregate production functions do not have a sound theoretical foundation. The paper then evaluates the standard reasons given for the use of aggregate production functions in theoretical and applied work, and concludes that none of them provides a valid argument.
Re: Query: critique of production functions
He actually wrote two articles on it. Maybe in the New Palgrave dictionary of economics, or another dictionary ? J. - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions > Shaikh, AM, (1974). "Laws of Algebra and Laws of Production: The > Humbug Production Function", Review of Economics and Statistics, > 61: 115-20. (1980). > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:45:23AM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > > See Prof. Anwar Shaikh's articles on the "humbug production function" (not > > to be confused with the Cobb-Douglas production function). > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: Query: critique of production functions
Here is the article Michael and Jurriaan suggested, in downloadable form: http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/humbug2.pdf ahmet tonak Michael Perelman wrote: Shaikh, AM, (1974). "Laws of Algebra and Laws of Production: The Humbug Production Function", Review of Economics and Statistics, 61: 115-20. (1980). On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:45:23AM +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: See Prof. Anwar Shaikh's articles on the "humbug production function" (not to be confused with the Cobb-Douglas production function). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- card E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Query: critique of production functions
See Prof. Anwar Shaikh's articles on the "humbug production function" (not to be confused with the Cobb-Douglas production function). J. - Original Message - From: "Matías Scaglione" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:39 AM Subject: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions I am trying to write a review of critiques of the concept of "production function". I would appreciate suggestions about works critisizing the very concept of production function, not merely internal logical flaws or "empirical contradictions". For instance, I am interested in Marxian refutations of the "productivity of capital", the notion of "factors of production", etc. I wonder if there exists some work(s) that systematically destroys the concept. Thank you very much for your help, Matías Scaglione Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión 4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Query: critique of production functions
I am trying to write a review of critiques of the concept of "production function". I would appreciate suggestions about works critisizing the very concept of production function, not merely internal logical flaws or "empirical contradictions". For instance, I am interested in Marxian refutations of the "productivity of capital", the notion of "factors of production", etc. I wonder if there exists some work(s) that systematically destroys the concept. Thank you very much for your help, Matías Scaglione Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión 4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
Re: Query
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can anybody suggest a non-ideological, as well as an > ideoligcally Marxist primary economics text for me? > > Benjamin ** Hi Benjamin, Go to the source. Marx's speech now titled, "Value, Price and Profit" is my favourite introductory piece. >From there, go to the first chapter of the firt volume of CAPITAL and read it very closely. These essential works are available free at: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1864-IWMA/1865-VPP/ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/guide.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm Class conscious greetings, Mike B) = * "the Council Republic is not the culmination of everything, and even less does it stand for the most perfect form in which humans can live together. However the Council Republic is a prerequisite for the reconstruction of culture, because it makes possible the liquidation of the state,. It must be the task of the revolutionary of today to work for the Council system and the Council Republic". (Der Ziegelbrenner) http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: Query
My favorite books on Marxist economics: 1. Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development -- a wonderfully lucid exposition of Marx's views. 2. Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capitalism. Still the best account of the exploitation of labor in capitalism. 3. Ernest Mandel, Marxian Economic Theory, 2 vols. Rather orthodox but fair and clear, makes serious efforts to fill in gaps in practical sort of way. 4. Howard & King, The Political Economy of Marx. A tough-minded, very critical "neo-Ricardan" account that states (in my view) what is intelligible and defensible in Marx's theory of political economy considered from a somewhat formal point of view. NB, you do NOT need maths to read the book. 5. Robert Brenner, The Brenner Debate: A good introduction to the first Brenner debate, and discussions about various Marxist theories of the rise of capitalism; see also The Boom and the Bubble: the US in the World Economy; the basic text in the _second_ Brenner debater, and the most complete and successful attempt to articulate a credible Marxist theory of crisis. jks --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find Harrison's MARXIAN ECONOMICS FOR SOCIALISTS > (Pluto) to be very good in terms of a clear > presentation. By not hiding political implications, > Harrison is in many ways less ideological than those > who don't deal with those issues. > > Charlie Andrews' FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY is also > very good. I think it can be found at > www.laborrepublic.org but I couldn't open that > website today. > > as for mainstream economics, the Goodwin, Nelson, > Ackerman, and Weisskopf book MICROECONOMICS IN > CONTEXT (prentice-hall, preliminary edition). > > Jim > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Fri 10/31/2003 8:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: [PEN-L] Query > > > > Can anybody suggest a non-ideological, as well as > an ideoligcally Marxist primary economics text for > me? > > Benjamin > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: Query
It's Houghton-Mifflin (sp?), not prentice-hall. -- Jim i wrote: as for mainstream economics, the Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, and Weisskopf book MICROECONOMICS IN CONTEXT (prentice-hall, preliminary edition). Jim
Re: Query
I find Harrison's MARXIAN ECONOMICS FOR SOCIALISTS (Pluto) to be very good in terms of
a clear presentation. By not hiding political implications, Harrison is in many ways
less ideological than those who don't deal with those issues.
Charlie Andrews' FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY is also very good. I think it can be
found at www.laborrepublic.org but I couldn't open that website today.
as for mainstream economics, the Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, and Weisskopf book
MICROECONOMICS IN CONTEXT (prentice-hall, preliminary edition).
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 10/31/2003 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: [PEN-L] Query
Can anybody suggest a non-ideological, as well as an ideoligcally Marxist
primary economics text for me?
Benjamin
Re: Query
Some useful introductions to Marx's economic ideas are: Ben Fine (1989) "Marx's Capital", Macmillan, 3rd Edition (the briefest) Duncan Foley (1986) "Understanding Capital: Marx's Economic Theory", Harvard University Press. Geoffrey Kay (1979), The Economic Theory of the Working Class, Macmillan/Palgrave George Catephores (1989) "An Introduction to Marxist Economics" Macmillan. Ernest Mandel (1977) "Marxist Economic Theory", Merlin Press/Monthly Review Press (a long story with historical examples, 2 volumes). Jurriaan - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:19 AM Subject: [PEN-L] Query Can anybody suggest a non-ideological, as well as an ideoligcally Marxist primary economics text for me? Benjamin
Query
Can anybody suggest a non-ideological, as well as an ideoligcally Marxist primary economics text for me? Benjamin
Re: query: Chiapas coffee
You could try here: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/ --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > twice, I've seen Chiapas coffee for sale. Does > buying it help those in > Chiapas who support the Zapatistas (the EZLN) in any > way? > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine = * "--why do you slack your fighting-fury now? It's hard for me, strong as I am, single-handed to breach the wall and cut a path to the ships--come, shoulder-to-shoulder! The more we've got, the better the work will go!" One of Sarpedon's speeches in THE ILIAD--The Trojans storm the rampart http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
query: Chiapas coffee
twice, I've seen Chiapas coffee for sale. Does buying it help those in Chiapas who support the Zapatistas (the EZLN) in any way? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
