welcome back, Louis!
Louis P. wrote:
Over the past week or so, as I have begin to think more and more about
these issues, a number of questions began to take shape. First of all, why
would the ruling class allow such a threat to the ongoing stability of
capital accumulation take place? Wasn't it
The gamble seems to have worked out. They're being bailed out, while the
"crisis" is encouraging the return to nukes, trashing the North Alaskan
coast, etc.
please correct me if I am wrong.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Actually I have not even begun to
Clip-
One of the first targets of the regulators was the finance industry, which
was widely seen as the cause of the Great Crash. So the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) was created and Joseph Kennedy, the bootlegger,
slumlord and financier-thief, was put in charge of it. When critics
CB: Thanks for this report Lou. The above passage, and your whole
discussion demonstrates how regulation/deregulation is a form of
state-monopoly as Lenin predicted the direction of that process in
_Imperialism_, especially in the historical period you focus on , '20's and
'30's.
I think this
First, of course Michael and Karl were brothers. Though they themselves did not
reference one another's work, there was an interesting article in the American
Journal of Economics and Sociology a couple years ago that attempted to
synthesize their contributions. I can dig up the cite, but it was
I have a problem with the term "social capital." First, in economics they are
already using the term "human capital" for labor power, with rational
individuals "investing" to seek maximum return over time, etc. Lester Thurow
actually pointed out some of the problems with this years ago, but in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 10:40AM
Charles is anticipating the direction I am going with this. After I am done
looking at specific cases of deregulation and the economic impact, I will
attempt to put all this in the context of Marxist theory. I approach the
question--at least right
Mat Forstater wrote:
So everything
is capital. The reason they started using it in the natural resource case is
that these ecological economists wanted to stress how these resources are
important and we shouldn't waste them, etc., and so i guess if we call them
"capital" then we are supposed to
I have a problem with the term "social capital." First, in economics they are
already using the term "human capital" for labor power, with rational
individuals "investing" to seek maximum return over time, etc. Lester Thurow
actually pointed out some of the problems with this years ago, but
Didn't Stephen Breyer write the deregulation bill for Sen. Kennedy when he
was an aide?
Michael Pugliese
-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:11 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8020] Re: Re: Deregulation:
At 10:09 AM 2/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
Later on Ted Kennedy would follow the example of his father by using his
senatorial powers to deregulate transportation. In either case--regulation
or deregulation--a particular ruling class family would find itself looking
after the interests of the class
At 10:20 AM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
have a problem with the term "social capital." First, in economics they are
already using the term "human capital" for labor power, with rational
individuals "investing" to seek maximum return over time, etc. Lester Thurow
actually pointed out some of the
Jim Devine mentioned the wierdness of human capital. Here is a short section from
Class Warfare in the Information Age.
In order to come to grips with this expanded vision of the labor force,
economists devised a new concept. Specifically, they invented a new resource,
which they called,
-Original Message-
From: Greg Ransom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:47 PM
Subject: [HAYEK-L:] Sciabarra Seminar -- Total Freedom available from
Laissez Faire Books
Sciabarra Seminar, Feb. 26 - March 11
Chris Sciabarra's
[was: Re: [PEN-L:8031] Re: Re: RE: Social Capital]
At 10:17 AM 2/13/01 -0800, you wrote:
In order to come to grips with this expanded vision of the labor force,
economists devised a new concept. Specifically, they invented a new resource,
which they called, "human capital," a theoretical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 01:01PM
At 10:20 AM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
have a problem with the term "social capital." First, in economics they are
already using the term "human capital" for labor power, with rational
individuals "investing" to seek maximum return over time, etc. Lester
Social capital is going through all kinds
of changes and wiggles. I don't think it is inherently
socialist, although it certainly emphasizes the
collective in the sense of "community" over the
individual.
When I picked up a copy of the volume put out
by the World Bank on Social
Mat,
I fully agree that there are serious problems with
the concept of "social capital." I have just received
a book review by Steve Durlauf to be published in
JEBO that is positively scathing regarding the definitional
and measurement problems (he accepts human capital).
However, I
Actually, one of the conceptual problems with
social capital as compared with human capital
is that there is no commodification of it. One can
borrow money to go to college, thus "investing"
(in both time and money) in one's human capital
(potential). And in slavery, there is outright
isn't this what Clinton called "triangulation," using the other major
party's rhetoric and programs to justify one's own programs? And should the
Dem/GOP overlap be surprising, given how similar the two parties are?
At 01:43 PM 2/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
Anyway, apparently the
Jim Devine wrote:
isn't this what Clinton called "triangulation," using the other
major party's rhetoric and programs to justify one's own programs?
And should the Dem/GOP overlap be surprising, given how similar the
two parties are?
At 01:43 PM 2/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
Anyway,
At 03:05 PM 2/13/01 -0500, Doug wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
isn't this what Clinton called "triangulation," using the other major
party's rhetoric and programs to justify one's own programs? And should
the Dem/GOP overlap be surprising, given how similar the two parties are?
At 01:43 PM 2/13/01
Mat wrote:
On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money capital is required to
purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is variable capital, but
labor
power itself is not capital. Yes?
for Marx, the meaning of words depends on context (as Ollman makes very
clear in his
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001:
The unemployment line is becoming a relic of the past, says The Wall
Street Journal in its "Work Week" feature (page A1). With an eye on cost
savings and ease of use, most states are adopting telephone-based
unemployment insurance systems.
CB:Not so much disagreeing with Barkley ( since this is a something of a "social "free
association discussion ), but in Marx's sense, aren't all capitals commodities ? Labor
power is a commodity.
Investing in labor power by going to college is a form of training in Marx's scheme.
Trained
Sam Insull, if I remember correctly, is the tycoon who paid a group of
economists to develop the theory of "natural monopoly". It justified the
enforced monopoly status of the electrical utilities.
Peter
Louis Proyect wrote:
Perhaps no more apt symbol of the excesses of 1920s capitalism was
Peter, you have written this before. Where did you discover this?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:36:04PM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote:
Sam Insull, if I remember correctly, is the tycoon who paid a group of
economists to develop the theory of "natural monopoly". It justified the
enforced monopoly
labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being capital. a
commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money used to purchase
labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power is not capital. right?
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine
Peter wrote:
Sam Insull, if I remember correctly, is the tycoon who paid a group of
economists to develop the theory of "natural monopoly". It justified the
enforced monopoly status of the electrical utilities.
but didn't Adam Smith have a theory of "natural monopoly"?
I'm not rejecting the
capital goods are commodities but not all commodities are capital.
also, all capital goods are reproducible means of production, but not all
reproducible means of production are capital goods. a reproducible means of
production only becomes capital when it is used to produce commodities, that
Charles,
Point well taken. But, is belonging to the Elks
club a commodity? Of course it is true that one must
pay dues to belong to many such social organizations...
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 03:57PM
labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being capital. a
commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money used to purchase
labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power is not capital. right?
CB:
Well, of course in a very crude sense, what
yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a
matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly
to the extent that such networking leads not only
to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and
quid pro quos. The latter certainly look like
Christian,
Hmmm, interesting. That might count, although
it is somewhat different from the usual definitions
imposed by the social capitalists. But, it might fit.
The big difference is that usually the social
capital crowd emphasizes specific interpersonal
relations, not trust in an
Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be
social represents the category of totality. hence, in
the beginning there was social being and social
consciousness where the former reflects man's material
relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one
expresses those relations. My immediate
Once you leave the realm of Adam Smith's beaver and deer, everything gets
fuzzy. I mentioned goodwill as another example. While a piece of
software used as capital may resemble a machine more than Mickey Mouse, on
the accountant's books such distinctions can disappear.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at
Michael Perelman wrote:
With the increasing importance of intellectual property, economics is
rapidly rethinking what is and what is not capital. The inclusion of
software as a capital expense is indicative of the reconceptualization of
capital.
Don't you agree that there's something
With the increasing importance of intellectual property, economics is
rapidly rethinking what is and what is not capital. The inclusion of
software as a capital expense is indicative of the reconceptualization of
capital. Chris already mentioned goodwill has another form of intangible
capital.
Mat,
Actually among the very first users of the term
"social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist,
Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_,
English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972.
His usage was somewhat different from the current
Putnam et al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 04:02PM
capital goods are commodities but not all commodities are capital.
((
CB: However, aren't all commodities that the capitalist owns in the capital
relationship , capital , ?
((
also, all capital goods are reproducible means of production,
jbr wrote:
But, how does one commidify "trust" or
"community"?
Corporate "goodwill" is close to this, no? It is frequently understood to be the "good
name" of a company above and beyond the book value of its combined assets. It is
frequently recorded on balance sheets (and even depreciated),
Mat wrote:
labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being
capital. a commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money
used to purchase labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power
is not capital. right?
labor-power _becomes_ part of capital
Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to start
reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either I
couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the French
Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre
Mat,
On the grounds of the questions you ask, I
think you would not be unhappy with (most) of
the social capital theorists. They are not
enamored of rational individuals. They tend
not to play up the primacy of individuals in
either input or output terms. But then, it must
be kept in mind
couldn't this all lead to some reductio absurdisms. food is necessary to live.
if i'm dead i can't work. so food is capital! i ride my bike to work. it's
capital! someone turned on the radio at work and i heard a good song and started
whistling and working faster. it's capital! barkley
I recall seeing this in a book entitled Brownout, although no such
book appears in WorldCat. Perhaps it was an apparition...
Peter
Michael Perelman wrote:
Peter, you have written this before. Where
did you discover this?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:36:04PM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote:
> Sam Insull,
Actually, most economists measuring poverty define working poor as those
living at less than 2X the poverty level for that family size. You look up
the poverty levels on the BLS or Census web sites. www.bls.gov or
www.census.gov. maggie coleman
Seth Sandronsky wrote:
Pen-l:
Anybody know
Calculate Your Way to Better Shape!
Use our Free E-Tools to Find Out if You're Overweight,
How to Eat Better and How to Burn More Calories
Click Here and Find Out Instantly!
http://click.topica.com/aaabq0bz8SnrbAjwjxa/WebMD
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Bush.html
For an opportunity to discuss the article, go to our eCircles site.
The Washington Post
February 1, 2001, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION A; Pg. A01
Mat,
Actually we may be about to see a bunch
of economists trying to pigeonhole this idea
into more standard contexts. Expect game
theory (evolution of cooperation). Expect
minimizing transactions costs in new institutional
contexts. I have no doubt the Ph.D. theses are
cranking as we
Well, of course in a very crude sense, what
yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a
matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly
to the extent that such networking leads not only
to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and
quid pro quos. The latter certainly look
Has anybody noticed that "faith-based initiatives"
have the initials FBI?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8068] Re: Re: Social Capital
"God bless NATO,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/13/politics/13CND-BUSH.html
At 08:45 PM 02/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Mat,
Actually we may be about to see a bunch
of economists trying to pigeonhole this idea
into more standard contexts. Expect game
theory (evolution of cooperation). Expect
minimizing transactions costs in new institutional
contexts. I have no
Michael Perelman wrote:
Once you leave the realm of Adam Smith's beaver and deer, everything gets
fuzzy. I mentioned goodwill as another example. While a piece of
software used as capital may resemble a machine more than Mickey Mouse, on
the accountant's books such distinctions can
My wife joined Earthlink, an Internet service provider that seems to be
owned by Sprint, a long-distance phone company. So far, so good, while it's
definitely better than Compuserve (which is horrible, especially since it
used to be very good before it got taken over by America On Line). But I
- Original Message -
From: ALI KADRI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital
Everything is social to begin with? What is that supposed to mean.?
In the beginning God made the social and saw that it was
- Original Message -
From: ALI KADRI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital
Everything is social to begin with? What is that supposed to mean.?
In the beginning God made the social and saw that it
At 02:07 PM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
I should make clear, if my earlier post did not, that my problem is with the
word "capital." Capital is very important to the study of capitalism (duh) and
we can't just go throwing it around all over.
Assassinating Bourdieu would be the quickest end. I
This was an interesting thread on mathematical economics, I learned a lot,
and got some good leads. Thanks. I think Hahn's book is a good one to look
at, along with the reference to Cottrell's recent book. I think we should
commit on the price allocating computer in a bunker.
Does anyone know
Peter
Do you mean this title...
Rogers, William Brown-out - the Power Crisis in America
NY: Stein and Day, 1972
Michael K.
Peter Dorman wrote:
I recall seeing this in a book entitled Brownout, although no such book
appears in WorldCat. Perhaps it was an apparition...
Peter
61 matches
Mail list logo
