Michael
i can only conclude from your stats that Doug hasn't got enough to do at work.
and therefore should take my job so i can write more pen-l things.
kind regards
bill
***
Posted on 5 Sep 1994 at 01:43:31 by Uriacc Mailer (002033)
underconsumption
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 22:42:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (donna jones)
Donna Jones wrote a very informative posting giving a critique of
underconsumption theory. In the hope of
Many of my students here at Bucknell are interested in graduate work in
public policy, but I do not know enough about these programs to be very
helpful to them. If you have any information on public policy programs --
particularly on programs with a progressive/feminist bent -- please let me
On Sun, 4 Sep 1994 20:03:45 -0700 Michael J. Brun said:
I agree with both Jim Devine and Pete Bratsis that placing one's
hopes in the state is dangerous. I ask only, what would be less
dangerous? Jim asks for democratic control of the state by the
people. But from both theoretical and
before Keynes, all economists were monetarists? Not true. Keynes
himself lists several (Major Douglas, etc.) There was also the
"Banking School." Marx also was no monetarist, since like the
Banking school, he saw the amount of money in circulation as in
general being endogenous.
Marx saw
Jim Devine: I disagree with nothing you say; and I don't think
the two proposals you mentioned are irrelevant. and its funny
you mention the quote by Stalin, "How many divisions has the
Pope?", because it was on my mind. Much of my not particularly
savory stance is based on the question,
