Tom Walker wrote that he (and Max) want to hear more about accounting. I
missed Max' post somehow and am only responding to Tom's desire to find the
>>missing link that
>>I'll call "labour accounting within capitalism".
Tom take a look at an old book, JM Clark's "Studies in the Economics of
Ove
Max Sawicky wrote,
>I'd like to hear more
>on the substance of the accounting issues, which
>really get my juices flowing.
I'd like to hear more, too. It seems to me that there is a missing link that
I'll call "labour accounting within capitalism". Having done a literature
scan on accounting i
R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>Right now, the IMF is demanding
>"deregulation" without saying that they'll refuse to bail out the Big Boys
>when they get into trouble again--a sure-fire recipie for future disasters.
It's even worse than that. The IMF is pushing for a capital account
convertibili
At 01:15 PM 12/28/97 -0400, Tom Kruse wrote:
>One of my ocncerns is the way bailouts are really cover for "lockins" into
>free trade regimes, de-regulation, etc. So, concretely, what would a
>bailout for S. Korea look like that:
>
>- protects the most vulnerable small savers and small businesses
Walter Daum[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 1997 11:55 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: re: drawing a line
>
>
> On: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:05:31 -0500, Doug Henwood
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED
> . . .
> political end. Here's part of a recent column by the beloved Pat
> Buchanan (NY Post, 11/29):
I'd like to note that on the level of op-ed
analysis, Buchanan's comments here are
unimpeachable. The only wrinkle in the quote is
the gratuitous, jew-baiting reference to Goldman
Sachs.
On: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:05:31 -0500, Doug Henwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Except that these international bailouts, unlike the S&L resuce,
don't cost U.S. taxpayers anything. The Treasury made a profit on
the Mexico bailout, and the Bretton Woods institutions are also
profit-makers.>
I know
> . . .
> validating those threatened financial practices. Anyone here want to risk a
> global deflation?
>
> When it goes on a spree, big finance takes lots of hostages.
I wouldn't, but I don't think the authorities
would either, which ought to create opportunities
for concessions. That's
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> . . .
> Except that these international bailouts, unlike the S&L resuce, don't cost
> U.S. taxpayers anything. The Treasury made a profit on the Mexico bailout,
> and the Bretton Woods institutions are also profit-makers.
The question is how
Thomas Kruse wrote:
>One of my ocncerns is the way bailouts are really cover for "lockins" into
>free trade regimes, de-regulation, etc. So, concretely, what would a
>bailout for S. Korea look like that:
>
>- protects the most vulnerable small savers and small businesses
>- lets the big wasters
James Devine wrote:
>In a somewhat muddled op-ed article in today's L.A. TIMES, Perotoid Populist
>Kevin Phillips had an interesting suggestion: that any bail-outs of "elite"
>financial institutions be paid for by a tax on financial transactions,
>rather than out of general revenues. He called th
>> And a note: it seems to me that a central part of a progressive "no bailout"
>> policy would be pointing to the record of how such bailouts "structurally
>> adjust" millions outside the US into ever greater instability, vulnerabilty
>> and lower wages. In fact, I would suggest that working ou
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a somewhat muddled op-ed article in today's L.A. TIMES, Perotoid Populist
> Kevin Phillips had an interesting suggestion: that any bail-outs of "elite"
> financial institutions be paid for by a tax on financial transactions,
> rather than out
A practical response to bailouts requires attention to something the left
generally hasn't been too interested in: accounting standards. The New York
Times article on the IMF's New Look contains two paragraphs that sum up the
contrast between the arcane practices that actually determine the politi
In a somewhat muddled op-ed article in today's L.A. TIMES, Perotoid Populist
Kevin Phillips had an interesting suggestion: that any bail-outs of "elite"
financial institutions be paid for by a tax on financial transactions,
rather than out of general revenues. He called this "privatizing."
Jim De
> From: Thomas Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Max's drawing a line post is very timely, very to the point: we really must
> hash out what a progressive position on bailouts should be. I agree that
> these are the sorts of crises we will see more of. As evidenc
Max's drawing a line post is very timely, very to the point: we really must
hash out what a progressive position on bailouts should be. I agree that
these are the sorts of crises we will see more of. As evidenced by the NYT
article attached below, the mainstream press also seems to see th
It seems to me that our politics lacks the right
response to the current and incipient financial
events. By "our" I include both a liberal,
muddle-through stance and a radical,
sit-back-and-gawk posture.
The Administration is going to support IMF
bail-outs and some of the left is going to
be
18 matches
Mail list logo
