Barnet Wagman wrote:
>
> Operation Twist? What does that refer to?
During the Kennedy Administration, the Treasury and the Fed tried to
"twist" the yield curve, or "invert" it as we say today, by purchasing long
bonds and selling short ones. The idea was to stimulate domestic aggregate
demand
The settlement that Boeing has (finally) offered appears to be a least a
bit better than SPEEA's initial demands. That raises the question of
why on earth Boeing triggered the strike and was so recalcitrant (as of a
week ago, I'm told Boeing wasn't even negotiating).
I suppose the conventional w
Operation Twist? What does that refer to?
Edwin Dickens wrote:
The Treasury has purchased $2 billion in long term
government bonds in the
last month. It appears prepared to buy long bonds at an accelerating
rate
through November. And the Fed seems prepared to go along by trying
to
protect the
The Treasury has purchased $2 billion in long term government bonds in the
last month. It appears prepared to buy long bonds at an accelerating rate
through November. And the Fed seems prepared to go along by trying to
protect the dollar from the Treasury's purchases with a higher Federal
funds
It is hard to believe that anyone here would still want to defend the
Clinton/NATO policy any more. We have been through that many times now.
If we want to see the depths of US humanitarianism, I suggest that we look in
the direction of Baghdad.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >
Nathan Newman wrote:
>Come on, Jim. Those of us who have supported intervention have been
>denounced as "imperialists" while folks like LM have been praised for being
>"anti-imperialist."
1) The U.S. government and NATO are two of the most important
institutions of imperialism in existence.
2
Jim Devine wrote:
> [snip]
> Yoshie responds:
> > Practice precedes thought.
>
> And thought precedes practice, as part of a dialectical process.
>
[Aside: This exchange between you and Yoshie seems to be making
progress, but I want to focus just on this exchange in isolation.]
Yes and no. I
In a message dated 00-03-19 13:31:46 EST, you write:
<< I meant "free-thinking" in three senses: (a) secular, (b) self-governing, &
(c) freer from the ruling ideas. >>
I was using it in the sense of "able to think for oneself." And I won't
overstate how much that was true of OSU students, wh
At 06:21 PM 03/19/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim. You are looking at the problem from an American centric position. All
>of the
>major industrial countries went through the same process. All had a huge
>deficeit.
>All "solved" the problem at the same time. The particulars of the American
>situation
>Maybe Jim & Justin were made to conform to George Orwell's brand
>of anti-conformity in high school
I don't get this. (Why this personal attack?) Anyway, I wasn't forced to
read Orwell. In fact, I think it was in Junior High that the teacher yelled
at me for reading _1984_ rather than p
I wrote:
> >As for tolerating racist speech amongst rank-and-file leftists, the
> point is not to _shut up_ the racist-leaning leftist, but to argue
> against his or her point of view. If you respect the individual enough to
> use the label "leftist," this seems the only path to take. (This is
A side note: Steven Brust (as far as I know the only openly Trotskyite
fantasy writer consistently carried in all major chain bookstores) has
co-written (with Emma Bull) a Hegelian fantasy called "Freedom and
Neccesity" exploring (in a light-hearted way) the dialectics of this
particular oppositio
Jim. You are looking at the problem from an American centric position. All of the
major industrial countries went through the same process. All had a huge deficeit.
All "solved" the problem at the same time. The particulars of the American
situation are incidental.
Rod
Jim Devine wrote:
> At 01
Angela sent an excerpt from Spinoza:
>But I suspect an additional stake here -- other than that of Spinoza's
>rejection of the cogito (epistemological reign) -- that would explain the
>preference for Hobbes in light of recent discussions on freedom of speech.
>So, a citation from Spinoza:
>
>"Whoe
Carrol:
>Frankly I would rather be right than original. But if one wishes to explore
>this subject in depth one should also explore the sheeplike approval of
>such equatiions as "rigid purity = bad"; "independent mind = good."
>And anyone who differs in the least from the overwhelming consensus
>o
Jim Devine wrote:
> At 09:58 AM 03/19/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >"Free thinking" is the last way I'd describe Antioch students as a group. My
> >experience of them is that of a fairly uniform PC party line. Frankly I
> >thought that my students at OSU were more open minded. --jks
And M
Carrol:
>Please read the entire subject line. It tells a tale. We (marxism, lbo,
>pen-l, and L-I) simply cannot keep a thread on women going. Humanitarian
>Imperialism is a vital subject, and I've had much to say about it in the
>past and will in the future. But I think the quick mutarion into
>s
>From Jim Devine to Justin:
>><< The
>> poor Antioch students were made fun of in the mass media during the
>> anti-"PC" hysteria, but in fact you'll find them to be among the most
>> left-wing, free-thinking, & politically active students in Ohio (and
>> probably in the USA). >>
>>
>>"Free t
>It seems to rest on a peculiar definition of the word 'humanist'. Now I
>don't doubt
>that there are those, including some Marxists, who deal only in the abstract.
>(There is an old joke about the communist who loved humanity but hated
>people) But
>surely they are a minority. My understanding
At 09:58 AM 03/19/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 00-03-19 04:38:25 EST, you write:
>
><< The
> poor Antioch students were made fun of in the mass media during the
> anti-"PC" hysteria, but in fact you'll find them to be among the most
> left-wing, free-thinking, & politically active
At 01:08 AM 03/19/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>The so-called fiscal crisis of the state in the 1980s and early 1900s had
>absolutely nothing to do with government spending or taxes. It was caused and
>solved purely by monetary policy. High interest rates turning a same operating
>deficit into a large o
Nathan had written:
> >>For that reason, we should all be a bit less ready to denounce allies
> as enemies over such issues, and a bit more cautious in embracing
> traditional enemies just because of short-term convergence on policy<<
I wrote:
> > who was embracing whom? and who was denounc
Not at all a whim. But rather a dedicated policy of controlling and disciplining a
working class that was demanding increased wages.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Hi Rod:
>
> >The so-called fiscal crisis of the state in the 1980s and early 1900s had
> >absolutely nothing to do with government spendi
Please read the entire subject line. It tells a tale. We (marxism, lbo,
pen-l, and
L-I) simply cannot keep a thread on women going. Humanitarian
Imperialism
is a vital subject, and I've had much to say about it in the past and
will in the
future. But I think the quick mutarion into something else
In a message dated 00-03-19 04:38:25 EST, you write:
<< The
poor Antioch students were made fun of in the mass media during the
anti-"PC" hysteria, but in fact you'll find them to be among the most
left-wing, free-thinking, & politically active students in Ohio (and
probably in the USA). >>
Hi Rod:
>The so-called fiscal crisis of the state in the 1980s and early 1900s had
>absolutely nothing to do with government spending or taxes. It was caused and
>solved purely by monetary policy. High interest rates turning a same operating
>deficit into a large one. And low interest rates solve
Jim D. wrote:
>Well, I am making such a qualification, a qualification I see as necessary.
>
>As for tolerating racist speech amongst rank-and-file leftists, the point
>is not to _shut up_ the racist-leaning leftist, but to argue against his or
>her point of view. If you respect the individual eno
27 matches
Mail list logo
