Jim Devine wrote:
Colin writes:
1. Marx had a great many ideas about Capitalism and social science in
general, and much can be used even if you don't buy the notion that
capitalism blows up of its own accord (I don't).
nor did Marx.
I agree with this substantially, but there are a
Carrol wrote:
I think Marx's analysis of capitalism *does* imply that capitalism
periodically self-destructs -- and I think the history of the last 150
years bears that out empirically.
Much as I think that events like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the
Great Stagflation of the 1970s
Jeffrey Beatty wrote:
Apropos of the latter, your comments express surprise at discovering that
professional economists' notions of "natural" property rights are
descendents of Locke's ideas about property rights. If you check out the
early pages of the _Second Treatise of Government_, you
At 07:01 AM 12/18/00 -0500, you wrote:
I'm basically a plain old Bill Clinton Democrat,
I won't ask about the Lincoln Bedroom.
;-)
At 06:01 PM 12/14/00 -0800, David Shemano wrote:
2. To the extent that your criticisms of capitalism are primarily
political-social (e.g. capitalism
Strictly speaking the socialists drew upon Rousseau's notion of
"perfectabilité," (which the translator, Roger D. Masters, says
means "the
capacity to make progress" in J-J Rousseau, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AND
DISCOURSE ON THE ORIGIN OF INEQUALITY, Lester Crocker, ed. Washington
Square
Ian wrote:
Just because Kant and his groupies called it the Enlightenment we 21st
centurions have to blindly follow his historico-taxonomical rot? What
Enlightenment? To paraphrase Snoopy, "acutally existing civilization is
overrated"!
At least you knew what I was referring to, which was the
At least you knew what I was referring to, which was the point of
using the
term. I don't think it's worth spending a lot of energy arguing about the
meanings of words, since they are usually pretty arbitrary and
conventional.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I appreciate your antagonism to the Austrian school. I'll get out my silver
bullets and my stake. The cult of H*yek Mises (which I guess is backed up
by the There Is No Alternative political movement of Thatcher and Reagan)!!
Recently I had a discussion with a follower of H*yek who
Lisa Ian Murray wrote:
Does this mean we shouldn't quibble about the meaning[s] of democracy and
"The Enlightenment" and "democracy" pose radically different questions.
As Jim says, there really is no special argument over the reference of
the former; the question you raise is not over the
Absolutely.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 05:01:38PM -0800, Colin Danby wrote:
We're past diminishing returns, and I'll be away for a couple of weeks
now. So real quickly:
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL
Colin writes:
1. Marx had a great many ideas about Capitalism and social science in
general, and much can be used even if you don't buy the notion that
capitalism blows up of its own accord (I don't).
nor did Marx.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
It's very marxist to be rejected as a marxist.
I've started reading Capital. V1. I found an
old bookmark in my copy -- a pay stub from 1972.
mbs
. . . I include Dennis in Marxism, but if I followed his principles of
metaphysical purity I would write, "I hope you realize that
Dennis has
. . .
Is there any other person on this list who has espoused market economics?
Doug is the only one of you who has evinced anything but utter, total,
absolute, nauseated rejection,
Hey I'm still here.
mbs
Is there any other person on this list who has espoused market economics?
Doug is the only one of you who has evinced anything but utter, total,
absolute, nauseated rejection,
Hey I'm still here.
Yeah, don't get so heated, Justin! Sure, I tried some opposing arguments,
but where would a
Oh, heavens, I took this back ages ago. --jks
Is there any other person on this list who has espoused market economics?
Doug is the only one of you who has evinced anything but utter, total,
absolute, nauseated rejection,
Hey I'm still here.
Yeah, don't get so heated, Justin! Sure, I
Dave wants to know what is wrong with capitalism.
1) It involves exploitation, which is where profits come from. That means
that
(a) Workers have less freedom thatn they would if they ran things themselves
because they are forced to work for others;
(b) Wealth and power are distributed
Don't come back with how what we have is better than what they had in the
USSR. With the exception of Charles, no one here advocates that.
--jks
Actually, what the Russian people had in the USSR is better than what they
have now. Furthermore, the US had it better because it ripped off
Justin wrote:
I have argued that market socialism would do better on every one of
these dimensions; Dave Schweickart makes the case in his Against
Capitalism. The planning socialists who predominate in this list have
their own arguments, which you can get from them.
has anyone done a
Justin wrote:
I have argued that market socialism would do better on every one of
these dimensions; Dave Schweickart makes the case in his Against
Capitalism. The planning socialists who predominate in this list have
their own arguments, which you can get from them.
has anyone done a poll
Justin:
Is there any other person on this list who has espoused market economics?
Doug is the only one of you who has evinced anything but utter, total,
absolute, nauseated rejection,
Actually, as far as I can tell, there seems to be quite a gradation in what
people think:
1. Paleo-Marxists:
Is Barkley a socialist? Does Paul support market socialism, and not just
coops under capitalism? If so, I stand corrected. --jks
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6223] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for the Lefties -- II
Date
I wrote:
in any event, the plan vs. market distinction is a false dichotomy... the
key issue is whether the people run the economy and the state in a
democratic way or not.
Justin writes:
I'll buy that. Now, if I can get you to admit that in an economy where
there are markets in producer and
Can't make a point without sniping, can you? As if I have not argued it ad
nauseaum over the years, and recently, in fact, on this list, until Michael
Perlman shut me up for taking up too much bandwidth on the subject. But do
we really want to open this can of worms just now? Especially
Play nice. Also, yes, I think that we have been through plan vs. market
already.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:40:17AM -, Justin Schwartz wrote:
Can't make a point without sniping, can you? As if I have not argued it ad
nauseaum over the years, and recently, in fact, on this list, until
... As if I have not argued it ad nauseaum over the years, and recently,
in fact, on this list, until Michael Perlman shut me up for taking up too
much bandwidth on the subject. But do we really want to open this can of
worms just now? Especially because we will see if markets vs. plans is a
Maybe we should stop teaching David about Marxism until he makes good on
his promise to teach us more about bankruptcy. Perhaps both areas of
expertise will become more valuable if the economy does in the direction
that the NASDAQ is pointing.
-- Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California
While this is OK as far it goes. It ignores other essential features:
production is for profit and will not occur unless there is the
expectation of such. It is not based upon need, except qua effective demand.
there will be two large classes, capitalists who own the means of
production and
Regarding black markets:
Tom replied:
Your question presumes markets are anathema to socialists and I agree that
is a fair assumption with regard to "traditional marxists". There are also
market socialists, such as Justin Schwartz on this list. I happen to hold
At 09:50 AM 12/11/00 -0800, you wrote:
My question was intentionally vague, so let me try and clarify. My
question is not about whether markets are "efficient." As I understand
it, one of the left critiques of neoclassical economics is that
neoclassical economics incorrectly assumes that
In reply to Jim and anybody else:
Before I ask other questions, please provide me with a brief answer to the
following very basic question. I realize the answer will lend itself to
something much more comprehensive, but bear with me.
We all apparently agree that "markets" exist since the
David wrote:
We all apparently agree that "markets" exist since the beginning of
recorded history. But marxists distinguish "capitalism" as something
historically unique. If the defining characteristic of "capitalism" is
not markets, what is it?
There's been some debate about this issue on
I'd concur with Jim on how "capitalism" is normally defined as a
theoretical concept. Just to underline two points:
1. Marxist analysis focuses on production, not exchange. What
distinguishes the capitalist productive enterprise is that its profits
are controlled by the owners of capital, not
Gene Coyle's 15 minutes of fame?
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL / CALIFORNIA
Consumer Group Reverses Course on Electricity Law
By Kathryn Kranhold
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
08/20/1997
The Wall Street Journal
CA1
(Copyright (c) 1997, Dow Jones Company, Inc.)
Consumer-rights
Using another definition for efficiency, and just looking at USA energy markets,
we have
1. Natural gas prices going from $2.25/mcf 15 months ago to around $7.00 now.
There sure is a "market signal" to drill for gas from here to the Arctic Circle
and beyond -- but there is a bit of a lag before
34 matches
Mail list logo
