Let me take a shot at this. It sounds more like a problem of
your textbook than one of neoclassical economics (though y.t. is hardly a
neoclassicist).
General equilibrum models very rarely have money in them except when they
ask questions specifically about money. Prices are assumed to equa
Blair raises an interesting point. I can't remember constant returns to
income, what I remember from NC theory is that people in different incomes
spent money differently. Hence, the poor spent proportionally more money on
food than the rich, while the rich invested more than the poor (ye gods,
For all those digit heads out there. fondly (heh, heh, heh) maggie coleman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-07-01 17:21:27 EDT
To Myra and anyone else interested in this topic
Yes, ellen! maggie
>VIEWS FOUND HEREIN DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT
>THE THINKING OF ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
>ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE.
>
>REPLIES:
>
>[Doug Henwood said:]
>
>The spontaneous opinions of the uneducated aren't necessarily virtuous, and
>there are plenty of virtues of a "bourgeois" education. I'm g
I wrote> ... I think that one should subordinate the tactical
conclusions of "political analysis" (like voting for Clinton or
supporting the branding of child abusers) to longer-term
strategy, which in turn should be subordinated to one's goals.
The means should be subordinated to the ends.<
I was looking at some Herman Daly, and encountered the point that "the
marginal benefits of increasing output are decreasing," an implication of
the law of diminishing marginal utility when applied to GDP.
The textbook I am currently using for my intro micro course at a community
college, by Sp
Fellow Midwest pen-lers,
Please note the following:
> SEVENTH ANNUAL
> MIDWEST RADICAL SCHOLARS & ACTIVISTS CONFERENCE
>
> PROSPECTS FOR THE NEW CLASS WARFARE:
>RIGHTISM, LIBERALISM & THE LEFT
>
> ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, CHICAGONOVEMBE
Ellen has hit the nail right on the head -- hard! Thanks!
By the way, while I understand the problem, the attitudes you describe make
life unpleasant for all, not just parents. I'm single white male, I love
kids, and have genuine friendships with a number of young people, including
children of fr
At 2:20 PM 7/1/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>For some questions fact and theory matter, for others not. The only
>relevant fact turned up thus far is that crime against children by
>non-family members is rare, ergo the risk to children from outsiders
>is too limited to make notification a justifiab
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> At 8:23 AM 7/1/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> If people base their ethical and moral conclusions on "facts" that are
> totally untrue, then those conclusions have no validity, as dearly as they
> may hold them. The crime issue sure does hinge on both fact and theory,
> unl
For even more on recyling, Frank Ackerman has written a book titled
(I think) WHY RECYCLE? Having read drafts of various chapters, I
can recommend it to PEN people who are intererested in more on this
issue. The trouble is tht the book is not out yet. I think it will
be out by the early fall, h
Okay. I'll answer Max's question. If I had kids (I do) would I want to
know if the guy down the street was a convicted child-molester? My answer
is -- not really. Why not? Because it wouldn't make any real difference
in the way I treat my child.
Attacks on children by strangers are
I think Max is right that we have to respect his mother-in-law's
right to having an opinion. In general, we should treat people
with respect (though I would make an exception for those people
in power if it made sense strategically) and not treat them in a
moralistic way (i.e., INSISTING that
Although I didn't see the article, its not hard to imagine the content.
Conservatives have been attacking recycling for quite a while. Here's my
take on the environmental benefits of recycling, from my textbook,
Economics and the Environment. Chapter 17...
Solid waste recycling yields
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a different take on this: I think that one should subordinate
> the tactical conclusions of "political analysis" (like voting for
> Clinton or supporting the branding of child abusers) to longer-term
Voting for Clinton is a tactic, but permitting notification ab
Jerry;
lighten up -- or are you incapable of getting the joke?
maggie
-
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-06-29 13:57:20 EDT
Maggie wrote:
> I thought capitalists were paper tigers, not hyenas
At 8:23 AM 7/1/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>There are issues of fact and social science theory and there are issues
>of ethics and morality. The opinions of uneducated people are more salient
>in the latter case than in the former. The crime issue we were talking
>about doesn't hinge on fact or t
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Is it
> just because deficit reduction is something you spend your professional
> life on that her opinion here is any less valid?
There are issues of fact and social science theory and there are issues
of ethics and morality. The opinions of uneducated people are more
19 matches
Mail list logo
