Give the flurry of positings, you may be surprised to learn that due
to a computer problem some postings may have been lost.
Please don't assume that your postings did not get through -- many did.
If they did not survive, then go ahead and send them again.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Departme
Back issues of Rachel are very useful on environmental cancer,
including breast cancer. Check the issues prior to when PEN-L started
carrying RACHEL.
I wrote the following for femecon-l, but it also applies to the issues raised
by gina neff about who funds what. maggie
-
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 95-06-22 18:37:29 EDT
In the July 3, 1
Treacy: Start with Duke University which took $33 million from old J.B.
Duke's tobacco money when it was Trinity College, a Methodist
school that considered smoking a sin!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Gina Neff wrote:
>
> Direct money from the rich is ve
Direct money from the rich is very influential (one could tell tales of
donors who were willing to give only if the recipient organization would
change its name but that would be indiscreet) but many organizations
forget that those same rich individuals are on the boards of the
foundations (t
We shouldn't forget another man source of funds for non-profits:
direct donations from the rich. My wife has worked for several
non-profit associations (including the Arthritis Foundation & the
American Cancer Society), while I work for a university. All have
to butter up rich folks to get the
Welfare reform in the Senate is led by our pal Bob Packwood (not content
with screwing 20 or so women under his power, now he wants to attack 5
million women). The bill, as you probably know, is horrific -- a slightly
less restrictive version of the Personal Responsibility Act that passed the
Hou
>From Tavis Barr:
> Certainly my Cobb Douglas
> example was based on mechanization _without_ technical change and showed
> secularly falling profits for the reasons you showed above. The
> question is then, is technical advance a
> counteracting factor (= against depression, -TA)? The
> an
Trond said:
Secondly: If this rate really has been falling, it could perfectly well
do so without being caused by mechanization/automation. Even a
static economy (static in the sense of negligible technical change and
productivity growth in the period considered) will experience long run
financi
In a separate post I have suggested that, contrary to the
popular view, there is an error in the Okishio theorem
and, as a consequence, it neither refutes Marx's theory of
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, nor
corresponds to reality.
This calls for reflection on mathematics and its
John and Jim
Thanks for your necessary correctives to my outburst. I accept all
you say. Certainly, I have no difference with the insight
that the profit acquired by a capitalist as a result of owning
any asset whether or not it has intrinsic value and whether or
not it is productively deployed c
I forgot to mention in an earlier message (copied below) that, as
in most of the literature, the general trend for the US from 1960
to 1994 is for the profit rate to _fall_, even when corrected for
fluctuations in the rate of capacity utilization. There has been
an uptick of late, though the 1
On Tue, 20 Jun 95 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Cockshott) said:
>John asks
>
>All of the above is true but seems to miss the point of the Okishio
Theorem.
>That is, Okishio points out that rattional capitalists make investments to
>increase their rates of profit or, at least, t
Since it fit with one of my research projects, I did some simple
adjustment of Doug's after-tax profit rates (r) for the US for
the effects of capacity utilization rates (cu) and discovered
that the recent upsurge in the profit rate is probably not simply
due to changes in capacity utilization
Curtiss
---
sheds some light on the subject. The three greatest mathe-
maticians of all time are generally considered to be Archimedes,
Newton and Gauss. The crown probably belongs to Newton although
he insisted that he "stood on the shoulders of giants" -- which
is correct. It is said that
Doug touched on the oxymoron of philanthropy in his post on the elite
environmental movement--that large foundations want to set the agenda for
the movement. This, unfortunately, isn't restricted to the environmental
movement.
More foundations want to be actively involved
in the program deve
16 matches
Mail list logo
