Sabri writes:> I don't think even on this list we can come
up with a definition of the Left on which we all agree.<
also, what's the point of coming up with a definition that even a majority
agrees with? the meaning of words depends on the context. It's not like
there's a Platonic Form out ther
>
> >"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
> >productive assets. . . .
>
>Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? >
>
>Not nearly all. Nader is no socialist.
>I presume perhaps wrongly that 'left' is a broader
>category than 'socialist.'
>
Of course. I was talking about what his views we
>"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
>productive assets. . . .
Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support
nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines
and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government an
Really? Is that what "leftist"means? I'm not sure I would
support such a platform, not given the realities of
political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state
ownership in Russia. How exactly
would you sell this vision to the American public?
Ellen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] w
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his
> The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't
> the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just
> about efficiency.
>
I stumbled ac
>
>untrue.
>
>http://www.tap.org/
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
>productive assets. . . .
>
Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support
nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines
and the factories and
>
>There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant
>at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was
>that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and
>curtailing output.
>
But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets
hese search terms have been highlighted:
alan
brinkley
new
deal
fdr
Copyright © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights
reserved. This work may be used, with this header included,
for noncommercial purposes within a subscribed institution.
No copies of this work may be distri
fROM A WEBPG. ON aLAN bRINKLEY
Michael Pugliese
>...The End of Reform discusses the erosion of the New Deal after
the 1937 recession and the experience of World War II. Brinkley
notes how FDR, a consummate pragmatist, had held no design for
recovery but rather relied on "bold experimentalism"
There were two lines in the New Deal. The corporatists were not dominant
at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was. The idea was
that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and
curtailing output.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote
untrue.
http://www.tap.org/
mbs
"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
productive assets. . . .
.
> >
> > Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in
>competitive
> > markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up
>the
> > Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission,
>the
> > old government cartels in airlines and gr
In his _Exit, Voice, and Loyalty_, Hirschman places Nader's campaigns in
the EVL approach.
Mohammad Maljoo
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:24485] Re: Nader
>Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:59:44 -0800
>
>Jim's Thurmon A
No. William F. Buckley offered it to her, but she said she has had enough
embarassment with the Royal Family in the tabloids lately. she doesn't need
any more. Thenk yew veddy much. --jks
>
>Speaking of which, is there any truth to the rumor that because the US
>can't govern itself, the Queen
Brad wrote: > I've never understood the whole "things are bad, so let's
make them worse!" meme...<
isn't that the slogan of the IMF? or is it "things are so bad for the
wealthy, let's make them worse for the working people"?
Speaking of which, is there any truth to the rumor that because the U
>
> I've never understood the whole "things are bad, so let's make them
> worse!" meme...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
***
I've never understood the unsurpassable predictive prowess of economists in
all socio-politico-economic matters that exhibit greater complexity than
atmospheric chemistry.
> Like you
>I worked in DC. I watched the rewrite of the Clean Air Act become a tragedy
>foisted on the US citizenry by lawyers on K Street doin' the revolving door
>thang on Capitol Hill, arguably the real cause [along with the arrogance of
>the Big 3 "catering" to the consumer choice of a publi
I quoted Hitchens:
> >It's not enough that the two-party machine has all the
> >money at its disposal and all the press and media, too. It still needs
> >courageous volunteers to ram its message home. These unctuous surrogates
> >seek to persuade us that, though we have no power, we can and should
If the aim is to replace the two great evils, how can voting for the lesser
be regarded as positive even if in some ways it does make things better?
Voting for one of the two great evils is what gives them power and
credibility.The lesser evil is to forego minimal reforms to build up a third
party
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Nathan:
>
> >The continual evasion by Nader and other Green supporters for the results of
> >their leadership and actions is incredibly distressing on that point.
Nathan, do all voters to the left of Calvin Coolidge belong to you Democrats by
devine right or something
SUVs? The fact that the American Petroleum Institute ate Gore for
lunch in the fight over the BTU tax in 1993?
You can say that Gore didn't try hard enough for taxes on emissions.
But you can't say that he didn't try. And you can't blame dirtier air
in Portland-Seattle over the past eight years
Nader and his supporters had the power to throw the election to
Bush. That
is very real power. I have frankly urged that since the Greens have
exercised that power, they should now take advantage of it to promote a
radical change in the electoral college in favor of ranked voting
or i
>Brad,
> I'm going to repeat my comments to Michael
>Perelman earlier. I suspect that a Bush-Cheney
>EPA will not be all that much worse than a Gore-
>Lieberman one, although probably marginally so.
"Perhaps"? "Perhaps"?
And as I said, if you think the issues are important, then marginal
>BDL>>If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
>Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
>
>Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so
>often turn out to care the least about them?
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>*
>
>Why has the air i
Brad,
I'm going to repeat my comments to Michael
Perelman earlier. I suspect that a Bush-Cheney
EPA will not be all that much worse than a Gore-
Lieberman one, although probably marginally so.
If Gore wins, he will be busy trying to prove he is
not too radical of an environmentalist, especia
>To demonstrate your immense weakness and inability to mobilize voters
>while at the same time working against your own substantive political
>positions is the biggest display of political incompetence I have
>seen this fall, save for the way that Al Gore has run his campaign...
Bollocks, Bra
G'day Ricardo,
You point out:
>...and there's no contradition stating that Nader had every right to
>stay 'till the end (and to have participated in the debates) and
>concluding, if only at the last minute, that since Nader's campaign
>was going nowhere, and since the Gore-Bush campaign was s
>Sorry, I don't think you want to listen (and this has been the larger
>problem all along) and I'd rather not continue in this tone. Signing off
>for now.
>
>PA
>
> >
>>Why not be an adult, recognize that there is a big difference between
> >a Clinton-Gore EPA and a Bush-Cheney EPA, and admit y
BDL>>If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so
often turn out to care the least about them?
Brad DeLong
*
Why has the air in the Portla
Brad De Long wrote:
> >Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%. If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
> >over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose. They'll regret not voting
> >for Nader
> >
> >If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
> >regret not voti
Sorry, I don't think you want to listen (and this has been the larger
problem all along) and I'd rather not continue in this tone. Signing off
for now.
PA
PS I am not a faction
>You shoot yourself in the foot and then look around for someone else to blame?
>
>Why not be an adult, recognize that
>Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%. If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
>over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose. They'll regret not voting
>for Nader
>
>If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
>regret not voting for Nader.
>
>Many, of course, w
Eugene Coyle wrote:
>
> Many, of course, will not comprehend that Gore has sold them out, and they'll
> fume that the poor president can't get anything done, just as they have
> excused Gore/Clinton for their environmental sell-out for the past eight
> years.
This is crucial to understand the po
Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%. If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose. They'll regret not voting
for Nader
If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
regret not voting for Nader.
Many, of course, will not
At 10:48 AM 11/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
>Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
>should be discussed.
hey, it's Hagelin! let's give the meditators their due...
BTW, I've noticed a lot of more stuff on US National Public Radio about
medit
Max Sawicky wrote:
>Average hourly wage, service sector
>(not incl. 'protective' svcs.)
>$1999
>
> 19731979 1989 19951999
>male 10.69 10.02 8.63 8.19 8.53
>female7.838.08 7.45 7.39 7.70
>
>>From State of Working America, 2000-2001 (forthcoming)
>
>I
. . . Service sector workers, who are by far a majority of the U.S.
working class, may well gain from trade. I don't see any evidence
that EPI's trade work ever considers this as a possibility. Doug
What gain would that be?
Average hourly wage, service sector
(not incl. 'protective' svcs.)
$
Max Sawicky wrote:
>Nobody does more on non-standard work arrangements than
>we do. Ditto the minimum wage.
Yes, you do. EPI does lots of great stuff, and I'm a big fan of all
you folks. Maybe your latest hire, Heather Boushey - who starts
today, right? - will prod a bit of a rethink of the t
DH . . .
Max, you been studying at the Nathan Newman School of False Binaries?
You're either for the working class or for open trade?
I was trying to say that binaries are the wrong
way around this -- that some quantification is
necessary to draw any conclusions. Words have
failed me. Aga
Max Sawicky wrote:
>BDL's new piece on Nader is civil enough, but it got me to thinking
>about a point that has come up before -- the business of comparing
>consumer benefits to worker losses in trade debates. Henwood
>brought this up (once) and provoked in me the realization that the
>logic
Not long after Jevons et al. formulated neoclassical economics, political
commentators began to tell workers that they should evaluate their
situation in terms of rising levels of consumption rather than their
working conditions.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State Universi
Louis Proyect wrote:
>And I saw an ad on televison the other night. Highly professional and
>effective--attacks the Democrats and Republicans equally as fat cats. His
>adman apparently ran Jesse Ventura's ad campaign.
Bill Hillsman is his name; also did Wellstone. For a scan of his wild
& crazy
I think Neil's analogy was appropriate. What is your point anyway?
Mine
> >What kind of analogy was yours anyway ? Comparing the AFL's Labor >fakers
>
> >Party corral
> >in 2000 to the Bolsheviks clever mass tactics of 1917? On July 4, a >lot
>
> >of people do get tanked up.
> >So we'l
>"neil":
>>The LP acts as a political filter to keep escaping workers from fleeing
>>the Democrats
>>deceit and lies and building an anti-capitalist movement
>Whenever I read stuff like this, I am drawn back to Trotsky's description
>of the July Days, when Bolsheviks went out in the streets
"neil":
>The LP acts as a political filter to keep escaping workers from fleeing
>the Democrats
>deceit and lies and building an anti-capitalist movement
Whenever I read stuff like this, I am drawn back to Trotsky's description
of the July Days, when Bolsheviks went out in the streets to try
neil wrote:
>It is not quite true that the so-called US Labor Party has no candidiates-
>It does--99% Democrats! This LP is no labor independence from capitals
>parties
>at all. It is financed 95% by the AFL trade unions and they are recruiting
> sergeants for
>the campaign of Gore %& Co. (di
At 03:22 PM 7/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Among the
>minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Reform) and Nader (Green), I
>doubt that
>anyone will get more than a couple of hundred thousand votes.
one weird thing is that the more Buchanan looks successful at getting votes
("stealing" them from G
Rod Hay wrote:
>Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
>candidates? And who are they?
The Labor Party, much to the chagrin of many members, refuses to run
any candidates yet, thinking it best to build a membership-based
party first.
Doug
By agreement, the Labor Party is not running anyone for a while. The Socialist Party
is running David McReynolds, and if you dig around (perhaps someone else on pen-l
knows this) I'm sure there is a web site where 10 or so others are listed. Among the
minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Refo
Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
candidates? And who are they?
Rod
Joel Blau wrote:
> Two points:
>
> 1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity
> through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated concept
Two points:
1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity
through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of
politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive
prominence. From this persective, it is significant tha
51 matches
Mail list logo
