Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 14:03:22 -0700
From: Mary McGinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: URGENT ACTION: SUPPORT MEXICAN FORD WORKERS
URGENT ACTION * URGENT ACTION * URGENT ACTION
The Globe and Mail Saturday, May 6, 1995
Thanks and goodbye
LEANER AND MEANER/ Mobil announced a fat first-
quarter profit last week, but that didn't stop the
oil giant from giving pink slips to 4,700 people
this week. It's part of a trend that sees
corporate profits surging, but more lay
A labor lawyer's perspective on the TIAA-CREF proposal after this was
forwarded to the Worklaw list.
ellen
Ellen J. Dannin
California Western School of Law
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 13:47:05 EST
From: Goldman, Alvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
Response to Jim's recent 4-parter: Now there's a surprise, Jim and I
continue to disagree on the social logic of exploitation. That's OK:
we all know that PEN-L is good at eliciting ideas and positions but
ill- suited for resolving issues or disagreements. So be it.
Just some comments abou
Andrew Kliman recently wrote
> I, Kliman, am NOT an advocate of what is *generally* called the "new solution"
> to the "transformation problem," i.e. the interpretation of Dumenil, Lipietz,
> Foley, etc. I have been arguing for several years (in print, since 1988
> _Capital & Class 35, "The
- part 4 of 4: the Role of Market Imperfections -
Gil's question #3: >>If exploitation in the cases considered
previously did not in fact require formal subsumption ..., did they
instead require the existence of monopoly power in a sense distinct
from Roemer's? In particular, did exploit
Part 3 of 4: Exploitation by Pure Money-Lenders?
Gil's question #2: >>Is formal subsumption necessary for the
exploitation of labor (understood in the strict sense of
expropriating surplus labor) via relationships of exchange?<<
Gil has >>in mind here not only usury, the circuit o
--- part 2 of 4: What is "Subjection"? --
Gil's question #1: >>What is meant by the formal subsumption
(subjection) of labor under capital?... Jim ((presents a
definition)). This reading of the term cannot be found in CAPITAL.
The condition Jim identifies here Marx refers to as workers being
WARNING: long and abstract.
Here we go again! For any and all bored by Roemerian economics and
its follies, please hit the delete button on all four of these
messages. I have also written part 1 as a survey, so that people can
scan it and decide what's interesting.
--- Part 1 of 4: Key Question
My appologies to Andrew for saying that he was an advocate of
the 'new solution'. The figures that I posted used should better
have been labeled the 'Old Marx Solution' to the formation of
prices of production.
Paul
Ajit continues his discussion with me on value thus:
-
In Marx a theory of prices is needed to insure the
reproduction of the system, which intails realization of
the surplus. Thus prices occupy different places and
significance in differ
A while back, someone posted a long msg on how a bill to hand over property
right to most Federal data to West Publishing was barely blocked in a House
committee. I thought I saved it, but now I can't find it. If someone still
has a copy, please forward it to me.
Thanks,
Doug Orr
[EMAIL PROTECT
Dear Pen-lrs,
We'd like to link our National Budget Simulation to progressive analyses of
the federal budget or issues surrounding it (e.g., tax fairness). If
anyone has written such an analysis, we'd love to up it up. Just e-mail it
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Anders Schneiderman
Center for
13 matches
Mail list logo
