Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
Personally, I never stop thinking,
although the brain seizes up sometimes. It's one of the most interesting
things you can do with your own brain, really.
What's tougher than that is to be able to stop thinking while remaining
conscious and highly sensitive. (not
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Doug Henwood wrote:
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
You are comparing a cyclical low (1982) with a cyclical high (1997).
And do your estimates include interest?
1997 was four years before the cyclical high, actually. But the 1982
low was in many ways - political as well as
defines a use-value as an alienable object which by
its physical characteristics can satisfy a human need or want, i.e. it's not
simply a question of subjective perceptions of the utility of a good or
service as in neoclassical economics; some resources by their intrinsic
nature are difficult
a capitalist might figure that so and so
much amount of fixed capital depreciates into so and
so many commodities over say five years and then the
piece of fixed capital is replaced. But what happens
when the technological advance is so rapid that the
old calculation is off by years?
In the non-short run, fixed capital isn't even fixedit's as
malleable as wax, just like the institutions that make 'it' what 'it' is.
For accounting purposes, fixed capital is normally defined as tangible
durable assets held for one year or more. For Marx, the distinction between
I suspect that the measurement of profit rates is a very, very inexact
exercise, because the denominator cannot be measured.
I believe this is a mistake. Of course it can be measured, but not very
accurately. But only an empiricist believes in perfect data. The rest of
us understand more about
Fred Mosley wrote:
6. I have suggested another explanation of these important trends, one
based on Marx's distinction between productive labor and unproductive
labor - that an important cause of the declines in the share and the rate
of profit was a very significant increase in the ratio of
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
5. The most popular radical-Marxian explanation of these profit rate
trends has been the reserve army profit squeeze theory - that low
unemployment rates in the late 1960s and early 1970s increased workers
power, and enable them to gain substantial wage increases and to
paul phillips wrote:
Since that time, we have been in a period of demand constraint.
Not hardly in the U.S. The 1990s expansion was the most
consumption-intensive in history. The MPC was something like 104%
measured over the whole cycle. It's been something like 99% since the
early-2001 peak.
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MPC was something like 104%
measured over the whole cycle. It's been something
like 99% since the early-2001 peak.
What does MPC stand for?
Mike B)
=
*
Where parents do too much
with a
rise in consumption of $1.04.
Michael Yates
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ballard
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 1:56
PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Estimating the
surplus\Doug's question
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The MPC
Thank-you Michael!
Mike B)
--- MICHAEL YATES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MPC is marginal propensity to consume. It is equal
to the change in consumption divided by the change
in income. An MPC of .99 would tell us that as
consumer income rises by a dollar, consumption rises
by 99 cents. One
Mike Ballard wrote:
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MPC was something like 104%
measured over the whole cycle. It's been something
like 99% since the early-2001 peak.
What does MPC stand for?
Marginal propensity to consume. The percentage of growth in income
which is consumed. For
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marginal propensity to consume. The percentage of
growth in income
which is consumed. For example if your income in
year 1 was 10,000
and your consumption 9,000, and in year 2 it was
11,000 and
consumption 10,200, your MPC would be computed as:
Are there other numbers to tell us how much of this is comsumption to
physically survive?
Joanna
Doug Henwood wrote:
Mike Ballard wrote:
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MPC was something like 104%
measured over the whole cycle. It's been something
like 99% since the early-2001
joanna bujes wrote:
Are there other numbers to tell us how much of this is comsumption to
physically survive?
There was a Fed study published in 2001
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2001/200121/200121abs.html
that argued that it was mostly driven by the upper quintile of the
distribution,
Doug Henwood wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
Are there other numbers to tell us how much of this is comsumption to
physically survive?
There was a Fed study published in 2001
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2001/200121/200121abs.html
that argued that it was mostly driven by the upper
paul phillips wrote:
Since that time, we have been in a period of demand constraint.
Not hardly in the U.S. The 1990s expansion was the most
consumption-intensive in history. The MPC was something like 104%
measured over the whole cycle. It's been something like 99% since the
early-2001
Oh, I wasn't being puritannical and Lear was just another big male baby
who failed to see that we must endure our going forth, even as our
coming hither. -- brutal but true...
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
Are there other numbers to tell us how much of
?
[Lots of modifiers: It is a modest uptick, probably sensitive to
changes in the way the data is calculated, etc and we know little about its
source. As I recall, your 1997 RRPE article was focusing on the
productive\unproductive issue and so did not get into the question of
productivity
the
ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase.
A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase over
time? if this ratio is squeezing profits, it seems that profit-seeking capitalists
would make an effort to lower it. or is there some sort
as well as material goods
be counted as part of productive labour in this
definition?
Paul continued:
As I recall, your 1997 RRPE article was
focusing on the
productive\unproductive issue and so did not get
into the question of
productivity of capital.
and
3. IF, IF there were a long-ish
Mike asks:
...do you mean by
uproductive labour, that labour which does not produce
a profit for an employer of wage-labour?
according to Marx's definition, unproductive labor (U) does not produce surplus-value,
though it may help the capitalists _realize_ surplus-value.
To my mind, that
Devine, James wrote:
Hi, Fred.
you write:
spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages -
because the
ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase.
A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase
Thanks Jim! Now, I feel like I know about where I am
in this discussion.
One, perhpas two more questions from the peanut
gallery:
How does the pile of both current and projected future
wealth production in the USA measure up against the
amount of dollars in circulation, including bonds and
with this so I will let it stand - for now. But it is good
you clarified it.
More seriously, thanks for taking on Mike's question.
Paul
-
From: Mike Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 12/12/2003 4:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Estimating the surplus\Doug's question\Fred's comments
Thanks Jim! Now, I feel like I know about where I am
Paul,. your story makes sense (though I'd add a lot). My question is for Fred, though.
The classical Marxian story stresses the role of the organic composition rising due
to some societal or technological imperative. For Fred, the rise of the ratio of
productive to unproductive labor costs has
Thanks again, Jim. If you ever get to Perth, we'll
have to have a Coopers ale (or three) at the Brass
Monkey. I can bring my Little Red Songbook. Comes
in handy after a few ales and hearty.
So, there is an excess of money in circulation
relative to the other currencies of the world.
Increased
My take on profit rates is a bit different from the thrust of this conversation
so far. I suspect that the measurement of profit rates is a very, very inexact
exercise, because the denominator cannot be measured. Invested capital
requires some means of calculating depreciation rates. The
--- michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invested capital requires some means of calculating
depreciation rates. The government does
this calculation by means of rules of thumb based on
the permanent inventory method.
Over a short period of time, problems with this
method of calculation will not
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I've wondered about are the calculations
concerning the depreciation of fixed capital in these
times of rapid technological advance. One never knows
what's around the corner in terms of the
revolutionizing of the means
Thanks again, Jim. If you ever get to Perth, we'll
have to have a Coopers ale (or three) at the Brass
Monkey. I can bring my Little Red Songbook. Comes
in handy after a few ales and hearty.
I'll have some cheap Pinot Grigio some horizontal athletics.
... When you refer to the others outside
discussed and accounted for in the
interim somewhere but I haven't seen it. I'd like to attempt to rephrase his
question and ask for clarification or a referral to the relevant literature.
It's simple enough, maybe, as a posed problem but it seems enormously
complex, even abstruse, if one were
I have been trying to find the time to join this interesting discussion on
the rate of profit in the US economy. My classes finally ended
yesterday. A few comments:
1. I think we can all agree on the big focus of profit rates, as Paul
put it - that the rate of profit is the most important
Doug writes:
I'd make the same argument using the real wage and the wage and
profit shares of national income plus an analysis of the balance of
class power. I saw that the profit rate, by my vulgar measure, fell
during the 1970s and rose during the 1980s and 1990s. What happened?
Unions were
Paul wrote:
The two eras differ not just just the contrast in fairness (a big
enough issue) but the contrast in terms of actual increases in the
productivity of capital. Wolff shows the Reagan-Clinton era as not just
treating the average person badly, but for no real *sustainable* gain in
the
Paul wrote:
OK, I'll try, but please excuse the simplicity given the need for brevity.
1) Howard Dean announces that if elected he will exactly reproduce the
Clinton era policies [never mind that he can't] but will re-distribute the
growth back to working people WHILE achieving the same
people, but, it's best if the research is relevant to the concerns of the
constituency of the socialists. I.e., the research provides means for more
objective evaluation of political policy.
I think a useful question to discuss is, what are the most important
imperatives of the US Left
Doug writes:
...I'm talking about things like NIPA profit
measures. Why is it so important to translate those into allegedly
Marxian categories. Every quarter when the flow of funds numbers come
out, I divide NIPA profits by the FoF measure of the capital stock
and get a profit rate for
Thanks for the feedback most of which I agree with. I hope I did not imply
that the rate of profit is the sole thing going on that matters. As you
point out other factors such as turnover rate and monetary factors are very
important.
At 02:11 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Its not just Marxist
Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical concept: investment
drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives investment;
current
profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long
run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates.
You are partly correct I think, but
Paul writes:
1) Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical
concept: investment
drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives
investment; current
profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long
run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates.
Marx didn't
Paul wrote:
1) Its not just Marxist but a Marxist Classical concept: investment
drives the economy; expectation of future profit drives investment; current
profit rates *help* drive those expectations (all this in the 'long
run'). Hence the big focus on profit rates.
Fine with me (and
Moseley re-cast the data into authentic Marxian categories.
I agree with Doug. I also agree with G. Lukacs -- Orthodox Marxism,
therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's
investigations. It is not the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the
exegesis of a
Michael Dawson wrote:
If you add together profits, rental income, interest income, depreciation
allowances, and, say, half of corporate officer compensation, straight out
of NIPA tables, doesn't that give you a pretty clear picture of
exploitation? Why translate this information into terms
unproductive labor is involved in the circulation of commodities (rather than their
production) or in supervisory roles in production. I find it relatively easy to define
this, as people like Tonak Shaikh do.
The question is whether Marx's concept is _useful_ for understanding the world. I'm
So, I really don't know what the best answer
is -- except that it is a good idea to try and
be conversant in orthodox Marxism, modern
economics, etc., and not to reject others on
the basis of terminological preference.
Julio
I don't know what exactly you mean by modern economics
Julio but
For example, I am not as deeply in love with Marxian
theory of value as Jurriaan is, nor I am as deeply in
love with contract theory as who knows whom?
It makes absolutely no sense for a socialist to be in love with a theory,
because a theory is only a means to an end.
The only thing I can
While you're at it, why don't you sort out Arnold's
accounting problem, so that we can get on with more
interesting stories.
J.
Hi J.,
I will respond to you in a language you seem to
understand best.
I don't give a fucking shit to Arnold's accounting
problems or to you.
You called for it,
Sorry, Doug, but too many conversations are going on at the same time on
this. I think Tonak was making a different point. But, here's my foolish
quick late night try (foolish since this is stuff you know well and I am
just I taking the bait to find out to which element of these breakdowns you
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of michael a. lebowitz
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: college students again and a question
I agree with Ahmet:
radical economists were repressed in the 50s in US
Robert asks:
Would you give the citation for these?
There's a good paper at http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/wkolsen/ahe2002/GT1.docalthough
how appealing Californians would find the notion of "grounded theory" I do not
know.
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane And I
howled, at my ma in the
Thanks, but I mean Fred's chapters.
At 13:58 3/12/03 +0100, you wrote:
Robert
asks:
Would you give the citation for these?
There's a good paper at
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/wkolsen/ahe2002/GT1.doc
although how appealing Californians would find the notion of grounded theory I do not know.
I
1:30 AM
Subject: Re: college students again and a question
Many of the students seemed convinced that
neoclassical economics was an inadequate tool
for analyzing production and distribution.
But several of them wanted to know why it was
so popular and dominant in the schools. Why
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003 at 09:59:16 (-0500) E. Ahmet Tonak writes:
Radical economists cannot get teaching positions at those universities
respected or otherwise if there is no demand for them. The demand itself is
always created by the general political and cultural mood. Sometimes,
certain
, Harris of Stanford, Foley of
Barnard/Columbia, etc.
Am I making sense as an outsider--as another Turk?
Ahmet Tonak
- Original Message -
From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: college students again and a question
, 2003 8:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] college students again and a question
What happened at American universities in the 60's was
1) anyone who didn't want to be drafted headed for a graduate
program --
and many of these folks were radicalized by the war.
2
graduate programmes, and I find
myself increasing recommending political science and geography
departments because of the possibility of doing political economy within
them. I think it will take the combination of mass activity (which will
lead even economics students to question again
Michael Yates described his success in addressing Jim Craven's classes.
A certain degree of his success probably had to do with the fact that
Jim had already laid the groundwork. I wonder how well he would do
after students had finished nearly a semester of neoclassical
indoctrination. I'm not
that all the important new ideas in economics have
come from outside neoclassical economics ? The question is really whether
neoclassical economists want to bore people to death, or admit heterodox
economics.
Jurriaan
Ahmet:
Radical economists cannot get teaching positions
at those universities respected or otherwise if
there is no demand for them. The demand itself
is always created by the general political and
cultural mood.
I don't debate this Ahmet. But there seems to be a
chicken and egg issue when
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:52:38 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
Michael Dawson wrote:
I did not call you an FBI agent on LBO-talk, though I
did say you have penis
envy regarding Doug Henwood.
Time to resubscribe to lbo-talk
dd
My friend James Craven invited me to speak in three of his economics
classes at Clark College in Vancouver Washington, just a few miles north of
Portland. Jim is using my new book as a supplementary text in his
courses. It was an interesting experience to talk to students who had read
my
it or not, it is at
these respected universities that one can outshout
the others. Those who outshouted the alternative views
did that from their posts at these respected
universities.
Whether PEN-Lers and others like them had any chance
to find a place at such universities is a question to
which I am not qualified
Dear Mr. Proyect: In what sense do you mean
your claim that "urban life is unsustainable?" Do you mean we need better
cities, or that cities themselves have to go? Please clarify. Your
11/27 posting appears to argue against the continued existence of urban living
of any kind. True or
You have some fucking nerve interrogating me. You wrote me that I was
probably an FBI agent and accused me of penis envy on LBO-Talk because I
wrote a critique of Henwood's Nation Magazine article. If I ever get out to
Portland to look up some old friends, I might drop into see you and let you
say
I have no idea what brought this on, but it is not acceptable here. Lou
knows that. I have no idea about penis envy, but whatever goes on on
other lists need not concern us here.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:53:47PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
You have some fucking nerve interrogating me. You
source, requires a greater expenditure of fossil fuel energy, which more rapidly depletes the indigenous fossil fuel sources that one is trying to preserve. Hence "alternative energy source" - as a thing in itself, is not solution and one is still faced with the question of sustainabilit
I did not call you an FBI agent on LBO-talk, though I did say you have penis
envy regarding Doug Henwood. Meanwhile, I assume you're too embarrassed by
your own argument that urban life is unsustainable to answer my question.
- Original Message -
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED
to answer my question.
- Original Message -
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Question for Louis Proyect
You have some fucking nerve interrogating me. You wrote me that I was
probably an FBI agent
am not used to answering questions from people
who think that I am a cop and who have told me never to correspond with
them again.
Meanwhile, I assume you're too embarrassed by
your own argument that urban life is unsustainable to answer my question.
I suggest that you read John Bellamy Foster
nable" to answer my question
Nothing wrong with envy. Jealously is the sin - evil, and carving to posses that of others. Lust is a material force and it has nothing to do with p.
"Urban life is unsustainable" is not an abstraction but means the urban life we have and are living.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/03 10:27PM
when I studied tax history in New Zealand, I discovered
that the working class paid no income tax prior to the 1930s (except a
negligible amount in some cases, and possibly some taxes related to
home
ownership and so on). It was the farmers, landowners and
few folks paid federal income tax until 1930s (if memory serves, part
of debate over 16th amendment to u.s. constitution - ratified in 1913 -
was over whether or not wages would be taxed)...about 15% paid prior to
new deal, about 80% were paying by end of ww2...fdr's one 'great' tax
policy was to
: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My question about taxation history in the USA
few folks paid federal income tax until 1930s (if memory serves, part
of debate over 16th amendment to u.s. constitution - ratified in 1913 -
was over whether or not wages would
I have a question about tax history in the USA, which relates to some
previous comments I made (a bit rudely) about the fact that in modern
capitalism the gross wage effectively includes a legal obligation to
subsidise state bureaucracies and private corporations.
The point is this: when I
I heard an interview on Pacifica to the effect that immigrant soldiers
without US passports are not being reported as dead American soldiers.
Has anyone else heard that story?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
I doubt that she would read Commons. I am guessing that the capital
controversy is the CC controversy.
She traces the controversy to Wicksell, and even more directly to Sraffa,
who I doubt read Commons.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:15:26PM -0800, Eubulides wrote:
Does anyone on the list know if
I don't know the answer to the question. But Keynes and Commons
carried on a correspondence, so there would have been a possible
connection to Joan Robinson.
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
I doubt that she would read Commons. I am guessing that the capital
controversy is the CC
Does anyone on the list know if JR read John Commons Legal Foundations of
Capitalism? I'm re-reading Morton Horwitz' The Transformation of
American Law: 1870-1960 and seeing intimations of the CC controversy in
US court cases from the 20's and am wondering if I'm
hallucinating
The Wall St. Journal today discussed John Taylor saying that
dollarization is fine for small economies. Why is it bad for China?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
For a people repressed for years by sanctions, air bombings and remote control wars, seeing soldiers on the grounds is a dream come true. In that sense Iraq is a new Mecca for nationalist, ultra leftist and fundamentalist alike. It is true that 95% of the resistance is local, but it is going to
On Sunday, October 26, 2003 at 15:17:02 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes:
Does anybody know of a nice thumbnail history of insurance?
In the United States? I remember reading something of merchant groups
pooling funds here to insure cargoes. Does that fit your thumb??
Bill
Michael Perelman wrote:
I am reading all sorts of reports about soaring Chinese demand
pushing up commodity prices. Has anybody thought abut the extent
to which this effect undo the the beneficial effects of cheap
Chinese imports??
Commodity prices, outside oil, have almost no effect on general
--- Bill Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2003 at 15:17:02 (-0800)
Michael Perelman writes:
Does anybody know of a nice thumbnail history of
insurance?
Much broader that just insurance, see
Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk
by Peter L. Bernstein
For
I am hearing more about natural gas than oil going up as a result of
Chinese demand. Of course, coming out of the oil shocks in the 70s, some
economists wrote that oil prices could not have much of an effect because
fuel costs were so low.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Doug Henwood
Sitting here just south of the insurance capital of the US, I figured I
should step up on this. Tell me more, Michael. What type of
insurance? Which nation(s)? For starters, there's The Historian and the
Business of Insurance, edited by O. Westall, specific to insurance in
Great Britain, and
Michael had asked about the Iraq Donors Conference in Madrid. Apologies
for not being able to reply sooner (and now it is after the event!).
1) Over several months before the Conference the press had widely reported
that non-coalition donors were very reluctant to contribute and that even
Thank you to everybody who responded to my insurance question. I'm
sitting here icing a swollen pinkie, so I'll be brief. I just wanted
something very superficial. I think I have it now. I have read Viviana
Zelizer, Morals and Markets and the Bernstein book before. Both are very
interesting
Paul's response was very informative. I wonder if the Madrid conference
did anything to increase the respectability of the war. I read that the
socialists just lost in Madrid, supposedly in part because the UN vote
gave legitimacy to the Spanish action Iraq.
-- Michael Perelman
Economics
Does anybody know of a nice thumbnail history of insurance?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am reading all sorts of reports about soaring Chinese demand
pushing up commodity prices. Has anybody thought abut the extent
to which this effect undo the the beneficial effects of cheap
Chinese imports??
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
This doesn't respond to your question but as I read of the same demand
for commodities I wonder if China is pouring dollars back out of the
country for a couple of purposes -- to hedge on commodity prices and to
lower the heat on the devaluation issue. Any thoughts?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman
Does the US quickly remove seriously injured from Iraq right away so as to
not count them among the dead? Aren't all the counted deaths people who
did not survive attacks, even temorarily?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Economics question
Has there ever been a sustainable job-loss recovery? I see a
number of
signs of recovery, but they seem relatively superficial.
Business week
says that the positive earnings is deceptive
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics question
It seems to me that the lower value of the US dollar
and the increased sales to foreign markets will be
seen in quarterly corporate profit reports just in
time
Has there ever been a sustainable job-loss recovery? I see a number of
signs of recovery, but they seem relatively superficial. Business week
says that the positive earnings is deceptive. Is this apparent recovery
going to be sufficient to give Bush a second term?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics
It seems to me that the lower value of the US dollar
and the increased sales to foreign markets will be
seen in quarterly corporate profit reports just in
time to give the stock market a boost and Shrub just
the push he needs to get himself re-selected.
Best,
Mike B)
=
Michael Perelman wrote:
Has there ever been a sustainable job-loss recovery? I see a number of
signs of recovery, but they seem relatively superficial. Business week
says that the positive earnings is deceptive. Is this apparent recovery
going to be sufficient to give Bush a second term?
If
101 - 200 of 1299 matches
Mail list logo
