At 23/06/01 22:57 -0500, Matthew wrote:
>'reforms' necessary to deal with these limits are so severe it is hard
>to see how it would still be 'capitalism' once we're done. on the other
>hand, it's still here. what about political? social?
Indeed the reforms will ultimately change the characte
At 23/06/01 15:53 -0700, you wrote:
>Chris B writes:
>>I do not know if Jim is saying that Marx explicitly argued in Volume III
>>that the rising organic composition of capital led to an automatic (and
>>permanent) break down. A reference would be important if Jim is saying
>>Marx really did th
2 definitely can be the basis for problems with 1. and 2 also does
nothing without also having 1, because you can't "push on a string."
none of it matters if we have problems with 4, and many policies to
address 1 will exacerbate 4 (mindless growth uses up more resources and
creates more pollution
Well said. The question then is do these contradictions reinforce each
other or do they cancel each other out?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:57:39PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
>
> 1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low sales. it
>
Constraints to Capitalist Expansion:
1) lack of aggregate demand - obviously, low demand means low sales. it
also probably means slow productivity growth, competitive weakness (for
firms, industries, sectors, nations), which feeds cumulatively back to
low demand
2) availability of credit. credit
[and to think he used to be on the steering committee of the French
Socialist Party...]
US-EU: The Biggest Trading Elephants in the Jungle - But Will They
Behave ?"
Speech by Pascal Lamy to the Economic Strategy Institute, Washington
D.C., 7 June 2001
Clyde, thank you for your kind introduction
< http://www.pnltv.com/fi-news.html >
< http://www.iht.com/articles/23763.html >
LONDON
Economic reform is in big trouble in Latin America. The region
has a triple bane: low savings rates, high government borrowing and
debt as well as an addiction to foreign capital.
.
Argentina and Brazil tried to break that stranglehold. In 1991,
[Robert Merton anyone?]
China Growing Uneasy About U.S. Relations
Bush's Comments Cited as Catalyst
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01
BEIJING, June 22 -- China's leaders are increasingly concerned that
Washington and Beijing are headed for a conf
Chris B writes:
>I do not know if Jim is saying that Marx explicitly argued in Volume III
>that the rising organic composition of capital led to an automatic (and
>permanent) break down. A reference would be important if Jim is saying
>Marx really did this, as opposed to arguing extensively fro
At 23/06/01 12:16 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> my point was only that Marx's theory wasn't very good. I'm not going to
> get into all that argument here, but I agree with the literature's
> almost-consensus. That does not mean that I reject the capitalist
> tendency toward crisis, though, as I
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Doug is probably correct that the threat of choking on oil is an impending
>danger, but the oil is getting harder and harder to get. The low hanging
>fruit is gone. The oil that is now being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico is
>deep at the bottom of the sea. No one knows w
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:19:57 -0700
> > From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Unfortunately for Marx, his volume III theory of the rising organic
> > composition of capital doesn't work very well on either a theoretical or a
> > practical level. Not only can the capital
Michael:
>Mark may be wrong that oil will be the ultimate constraint. I suspect
>water will come first -- although our economy wastes an enormous amount,
>which gives us some wiggle room. In other parts of the world, the people
>are note so fortunate.
Actually, it probably makes sense not to us
Doug is probably correct that the threat of choking on oil is an impending
danger, but the oil is getting harder and harder to get. The low hanging
fruit is gone. The oil that is now being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico is
deep at the bottom of the sea. No one knows what will happen if a serious
From J. Moore's Recommended Books section at his website>
THE LEFT: A READING GUIDE
X. Looking to the Future with an Optimism of the Intellect and a Tenacity of
the Will
Edward J. McCaughan, Reinventing Revolution: The Renovation of Left
Discourse in Cuba and Mexico (Boulder: Westview Press, 19
Jim Devine wrote:
>BTW, what does the petrogeological profession as a whole think of
>Hubbert? what is the professional consensus on his methods and
>conclusions? why should we believe him rather than others? or is he
>"reputable" the way Milton Friedman is?
When Mark started going on about t
I referred to:
> > that eternal
> > chestnut, the "we're running out of oil" theory
Mark Jones says:
>This 'eternal chestnut' dates back at least to Marx himself, to Liebig,
>Jevons and others who first talked about resource limits, including both
>fossil energy and soil fertility.
Of course,
I thank Louis for his critique of "Empire". I'm glad that he actually made
it through -- which I couldn't do because I was so digusted with it both by
the more general issues Louis hits on and by its near-total divorce from an
examination of the facts on the ground. (Negri may have an excuse since
At 23/06/01 07:47 +, Patrick Bond wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:32:48 +0100
> > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > To what extent is there still relevance in the ANC/SACP concept of the
> > National Democratic Revolution?
>
>Concept is great. Problem is, som
Part two of Hardt-Negri's "Empire" is a rather lofty defense of an argument
that has been around on the left for a long time. It states that all
nationalism is reactionary, both that of oppressor and oppressed nations.
While the argumentation is studded with references to obscure and not so
obscur
Thanks Michael. I'm on the list, though a silent member.
>From Pacifica historian Matthew Lasar...
===
To: Ken Ford, Pacifica Foundation
Re: The Federal Bureau of Investigation
June 23, 2001
A message has come to my attention, purporting to come from you, in which
you ask members of the Pacifica Governing Board to
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:23:18 -0700
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't know what the biggest risk is for capitalism: Third World
> upheavals, financial implosion, global warming, overcapacity, or
> resource constraints. I think it would be very useful to
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:11:38 -0400
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> The expansion of mass consumption & regional linkages (in opposition
> >> to elite consumption & subordination to financial centers) under the
> >> Bond program (if ever implemented -- bu
> From: "Mark Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:28:35 +0100
> Do you even acknowledge as a problem, the global endemic energy
> scarcity which has seen per capita energy consumption stagnant since 1973
> and which is a very real problem precisely in those new
Jim Devine
> that eternal
> chestnut, the "we're running out of oil" theory
This 'eternal chestnut' dates back at least to Marx himself, to Liebig,
Jevons and others who first talked about resource limits, including both
fossil energy and soil fertility. The problem has hardly gone away. Another
27 matches
Mail list logo
