Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >I don't see biotechnology creating a wave of enthusiasm
> >comparable to the Internet.
>
> But, to be fair, you probably wouldn't have seen the wave of
> enthusiasm about the Internet either. Not that anyone could, but
> betting against thi
There is a relationship of these debates over modes of production, South
Africa, etc. to politics, but it is a highly mediated relationship.
Take, for example, the suggestion that Trotsky's formulation of "uneven and
combined development" is the best way to conceive of South African
development
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I don't see biotechnology creating a wave of enthusiasm
>comparable to the Internet.
But, to be fair, you probably wouldn't have seen the wave of
enthusiasm about the Internet either. Not that anyone could, but
betting against things for capital to enthuse about is gen
Michael asked Mark:
> > Isn't this getting pretty personal, Mark?
>
Mark responded:
> No, it's a reflection of exchanges Doug and I have had from time to time. I
> hope that Doug's question will indeed open up a discussion about what is
> relevant, and why. For my part, I'm saying inter alia: Th
Yes, yes, yes. This is important. And I would love to see us address the
degree that resource constraints are binding in the short-run.
Ricardo has been talking about resource constraints in China. Just this
morning, Tim passed on the report about California and global warming and
water. Ener
Mark Jones wrote:
>why is there this slowdown that the Fed
>can't help by reducing rates?
Because it's more of a 19th century slowdown than a post-WW II one,
with a financial hangover from the burst Nasdaq/tech bubble, and a
real sector one from overinvestment in gadgets. It's probably going
Doug Henwood wrote:
> That's me, Mr Sport! I'm used to Mark, I can take it.
So coming straight to the point, why is there this slowdown that the Fed
can't help by reducing rates?
Mark
Michael Perelman:
>
>
> I don't disagree with you about the new economy. I have a section in my
> new book that says pretty much what you say, but the way you said it might
> seem offensive to Doug. I hope not. He is usually a good sport.
I like to think of any needles I unintentionally insert
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I don't disagree with you about the new economy. I have a section in my
>new book that says pretty much what you say, but the way you said it might
>seem offensive to Doug. I hope not. He is usually a good sport.
That's me, Mr Sport! I'm used to Mark, I can take it.
I don't disagree with you about the new economy. I have a section in my
new book that says pretty much what you say, but the way you said it might
seem offensive to Doug. I hope not. He is usually a good sport.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:32:40PM +0100, Mark Jones wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrot
Mark Jones wrote:
> I don't think it's so much a debate about the origins as about the
> destination of capitalism, and also about what kind of politics we should be
> arguing for.
yes, but much of the argument gets off track.
> On the general question of relevance, for some years now you and
>We have, therefore, to get used to a period of sharply-reduced corporate
>profitability and lower investment returns and this poses a serious
>challenge for the City. Fund managers will find that generating high
>investment returns will be a lot harder in the next 10 years than in the
>last 10.
>
Doug Henwood:
>
>
> Does this endless debate over the origins of capitalism have any
> relevance?
I don't think it's so much a debate about the origins as about the
destination of capitalism, and also about what kind of politics we should be
arguing for. That's why there may be consensus about no
Does this endless debate over the origins of capitalism have any
relevance to contemporary politics? I don't think it has to - I'm not
demanding relevance as a precondition for debate. Just curious about
the volume and vehemence of it all. Doug
no, but the concept of hydraulic lock-in
deserve
Excellent question. That is why I asked on how we have moved beyond the
old mode of production debates.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:06:53PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Does this endless debate over the origins of capitalism have any
> relevance to contemporary politics? I don't think it has to
http://www.apocalyptic-theories.com/gallery/horsemen/durerhorsemen.html
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:38 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:12364] RE: Re: Relevance, was Re:mita
> hey, I&#
>OK. Tim and Tom are correct, except they did not mention the nastiness
>that is getting more frequent. I have not seen anything new for a while,
>so why don't we drop it. Thanks.
>--
>Michael Perelman
Actually I am taking the day off tomorrow to prepare my final post. After
that we can go ba
OK. Tim and Tom are correct, except they did not mention the nastiness
that is getting more frequent. I have not seen anything new for a while,
so why don't we drop it. Thanks.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL
hey, I'm worse than that. I'm the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, all
wrapped into one.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
This brings to mind an equine image, but not the
apocalypse dudes.
mbs
At 10:59 AM 5/29/01 -1000, you wrote:
>The way you argue I get the sense that Devine is a
>bigger enemy of the people than Reagan...and about as dumb a one also...
hey, I'm worse than that. I'm the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, all
wrapped into one.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bel
20 matches
Mail list logo
