I see from New Scientist, that the Royal Commission on the environment
which last week warned of catastrophe within 50 years, has proposed the
global egalitarian solution that each country should have a pollution quota
based on its population. Heavy polluting countries could then buy rights
Greetings Economists,
C. Gregory writes,
Christian Gregory
I get that.
Doyle
In reference to what Michael Perelman was writing about bonds being
withdrawn as debt is paid off. C. Gregory continues,
Christian Gregory,
I don't get why the disappearance of those assets automatically
means
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20674] Typo correction, Re: Re: Re: Re: Concerning Wynne Godley
Greetings Economists,
I felt the need to restate what C. Gregory asked to M. Perelman. I failed to put a question mark in the sentence where I meant it. See below for correction.
Christian Gregory
I get that.
Doyle, maybe I did not understand the question. The ultimate result
of the bonds coming due would be that households would be holding money
rather than bonds. They could use the money to buy other assets,
but the could not add to their holdings of bonds because the gov't would
not be offering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, Carrol, orthodox Marxism is a myth? I wish. --jks
It is a myth absolutely necessary for the health of red-baiting. No
Stalinist was ever so dependent on jargon of any sort as are
red-baiters on the myth of orthodox marxism to red-baiting.
The use of the term is
In a message dated 6/24/00 2:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg,
was a
socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly.
Both Z and L criticized the party line orthodoxy represented by
christian a. gregory wrote:
I get that. I don't get why the disappearance of those assets automatically
means that the wealth once held in them becomes a liability. Is it assumed
that turning treasuries into cash amounts to a debit or
consumption/investment?
As the old Treasury debt matures,
Carrol Cox wrote:
No
Stalinist was ever so dependent on jargon of any sort as are
red-baiters on the myth of orthodox marxism to red-baiting.
That's really funny. You mean offbeat Marxists like Adorno or
Lefebvre wrote more jargon-ridden prose than your average
pronunciamento of the CPSU?
Doug Henwood wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
No
Stalinist was ever so dependent on jargon of any sort as are
red-baiters on the myth of orthodox marxism to red-baiting.
That's really funny. You mean offbeat Marxists like Adorno or
Lefebvre wrote more jargon-ridden prose than your average
Carrol Cox wrote:
And this exactly illustrates my point -- Red Baiters (and in this
case I mean specifically you)
If this isn't unimaginative name-calling, I don't know what is.
If you think I'm a Red Baiter, you've got a pretty odd conception of
the political spectrum - as odd Cokie Roberts
Title: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Greetings Economists,
I've been mulling over my history, and my understanding of life experiences. It is Queer Pride day Sunday in San Francisco. Thirty years ago I was involved in minor ways with organizing gay people on the road to the left. At that time,
We don't need to get into name-calling here, but the discussion does
raise an interesting idea. The word orthodox is used either to do mean
somebody, or to proudly set oneself apart from a larger group, sort of
like gay people declaring themselves to be queer.
I've never known anybody to
Doug Henwood wrote:
And this exactly illustrates my point -- Red Baiters (and in this
case I mean specifically you)
If this isn't unimaginative name-calling, I don't know what is.
It is not name calling because it is limited in its application to a very
narrowly defined class of texts. I
Let's try to be more constructive here.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I completely agree with Michael here. And I would like to stop the
developing flame war. I simply insist that my arguments be met with
counter-arguments, not with labels.
Carrol
Michael Perelman wrote:
We don't need to get into name-calling here, but the discussion does
raise an interesting
NY Times, June 25, 2000
Review : "Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the
Twentieth-Century World", by J. R. McNEILL"
First Chapter: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mcneill-sun.html
By DICK TERESI
On an April day in 1970 I was riding an elevator to my job at Fawcett
Justin wrote:
Walter Benjamin is the only Marxist intellectual whose writings may
be described as millenarian in an authentic sense.
Yoshie
What about Ernst Bloch? --jks
I've only read the third volume of _The Principle of Hope_. Bloch
Benjamin are kindred spirits in their passionate
You and CArroll responnd to sharp criticism with accusations of Red-baiting,
and then have the chutzpah to reproach me for ad hominem attacks. Of course
Marx was nota n orthodix Marxist. He was, as he said when he encountered the
phenonomenon of orthodox Marxism, not a Marxist at all. He
In a message dated 6/25/00 6:39:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We don't need to get into name-calling here, but the discussion does
raise an interesting idea. The word orthodox is used either to do mean
somebody, or to proudly set oneself apart from a larger group,
someone wrote:
Imagine that the households hold large amounts of government debt as
assets. Other things being equal, if the government runs surpluses, then
those assets disappear.
Christian Gregory writes:
I get that. I don't get why the disappearance of those assets
automatically
I wrote:
"orthodox Marxism" is an oxymoron. Ever since the beginning of the
Marxian world-view, it's been a _debate_, not an orthodoxy.
Justin writes:
Oh, I agree that there has been a lot of debate. That's true in Catholic
theology as well.
this is name-calling, which suggests that you
I wrote:
A lot of other people, "put the issue [of functional explanation] on
the table." For example, see Rader, Melvin. 1979. Marx's Interpretation
of History (New York: Oxford). Of course, Rader didn't do so using false
precision the way GA Cohen did. He also doesn't go for
At 09:35 AM 06/24/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Godley uses the accounting identity that the private financial balance,
the trade balance and the gov't balance (written as a deficit) have to sum
to zero. I take this to be a restatement of the basic macro identity S - I
= (G + TR - TA) + NX. No? This
Justin writes:
I agree. It's part of my criticism of Cohen in that he cannot make this
distinction, although he does insist in another part of his account on
the distinction between relations of production that are functional for
and those that fewtter or are dysfunctional for the forces
I wrote:
And Marx, unlike the rat choice types, saw "preferences" as endogenous.
Justin writes:
As did Smith and Hobbes. But the exogeny of preferences can be just a
useful assumption, adopted for limited purposes, as long as you don't get
stuck on it.
Smith assumed that people had an
25 matches
Mail list logo
