There is the definition of class and then there is class consiousness --
frequently the twain don't meet. You can find many specific actions of
class solidarity during situations of stress, such as strikes, without
finding lasting class consiousness. F'rinstance, during the 1989 strike
in the ph
Max Sawicky wrote:
>The $20K proprietor,
>nurse, factory operative, and even security
>guard have more in common with each other than any
>of them do with a $150K artisan, from any practical
>political standpoint, including a socialist or
>marxist one.
Not sure about that. The $20K proprietor wa
>
>Does this mean that the purpose of politics is to enact policies that you
>know are bad so that you can be reelected in order to enact policies that
>you know are bad?
>
>
>David Shemano
>
As fara s I can tell, this is the "progressive" argument for voting for
Democrats,w ith the addendum t
Max Sawicky wrote:
> The problem w/the marxist definitions is that,
> while they may have some bearing on how economies
> develop, they don't have much political, cultural,
> or sociological meaning. The $20K proprietor,
> nurse, factory operative, and even security
> guard have more in common
Max,
I always thought the argument Marxists made was that Capital is constantly
trying to find ways to ensure that more and more workers are in the
20K/yr. category, including those making 10 K a year.
On a strike line for American Airlines striking flight attendants in 1993
I can remember the ve
The problem w/the marxist definitions is that,
while they may have some bearing on how economies
develop, they don't have much political, cultural,
or sociological meaning. The $20K proprietor,
nurse, factory operative, and even security
guard have more in common with each other than any
of them
It was all those 60s sociologists who added a factor of income and subverted the
idea of class to attach to the amount of goods a salary could buy. Also, the
idea of middle class was invented so those aristocrats of labor could separate
themselves from the great unwashed, i.e., women and minoriti
<>
-
Does this mean that the purpose of politics is to enact policies that you
know are bad so that you can be reelected in order to enact policies that
you know are bad?
David Shemano
At the New School's conference on "Functional Finance and Full Employment" in
1998, Bob Eisner told a group of us about a dinner conversation he had at the
White House with Bill, Hill, and Rubin. He said to them "You know the approach
you are taking to budgetary policy is bad economics." According
The standard "objective" Marxist definition is that a worker is somone
who owns no means of production (or not enough to makea living from), and
must sell his labor power for wages to live. It's not a matter of income.
The definition of "middle classes" is very trickly; Erik Olin Wright has
gi
At 09:44 PM 01/08/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>One thing, NOT the only thing, but one thing was the massive flow of
>capital into the U.S., which helped pump up the stock market, generate big
>capital gains, etc. (not just DFI, all capital inflow). I suspect that
>this was largely a matter of luc
At 03:38 AM 01/09/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm curious - define "working class".
For Marxists and sympathizers, the working class is not defined by income,
as Carrol indicates. (The income definition is inherently fuzzy, since one
never knows where to draw the line.) The "working class" represen
Mike Zellefrow wrote:
> Hello-
> I'm curious - define "working class". Give me an
> income range.
Class is not a thing but a relation. Income is irrelevant except
when it is a disguised from of participation in surplus value.
> For example, a self-employed carpenter
Petty Producer, whether
Ellen Frank wrote:
> Doug writes:
>
> >Ok, so what gave us the longest expansion in U.S. history, and a 42%
> >rise in real GDP?
> >
> >Doug
> >
> I really don't know. But the conventional wisdom really
> falls apart on close inspection. For example, real
> interest rates were high compared wit
David Shemano wrote:
> If crowding out is fallacious, and there is absolutely no link between
> budget deficits and interest rates, what is one to think of the efficacy of
> President Clinton's policies as a contributor to economic growth?
That there was none. Much as I miss Clinton (even thoug
Ellen Frank wrote:
> >
> Let's say I get a $50,000 tax refund thanks to Dubya, with
> which I buy shares in a bio-tech IPO.
Remember that most of the money 'invested' in the stock market goes to
buy existing stock, not new issues.
> Once current income starts whirling around in the speculative
I
> wrote:
>
>>Point taken. The key word though, is "may." The grandma
>>may buy Paxil, or she may buy real estate. The bank
>>may lend it to a ball-bearing manufacturer, or they may
>>lend it to a hedge fund, or a margin trader, or a real
>>estate dealer, or a takeover artist.
Doug wrote:
Behalf Of Ellen Frank
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6738] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax
Cut?
Doug writes:
>Ok, so what gave us the longest expansion in U.S. history, and a 42%
>rise in real GDP?
>
>Doug
>
I really don&#
Doug writes:
>Ok, so what gave us the longest expansion in U.S. history, and a 42%
>rise in real GDP?
>
>Doug
>
I really don't know. But the conventional wisdom really
falls apart on close inspection. For example, real
interest rates were high compared with earlier
years (despite assertions t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:6736] Re: Re: RE: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
>
>
> Ellen Fran
Ellen Frank wrote:
>Personally, I don't see that Clinton's policies contributed to
>economic growth.
Ok, so what gave us the longest expansion in U.S. history, and a 42%
rise in real GDP?
Doug
>Was not the entire basis of the Clinton economic program, the entire basis
>of his taking credit for the growth during his term, the fact that he
>increased taxes in 1993, thereby reducing the budget deficit, thereby
>causing a decline in interest rates, thereby causing economic and
>employment
>
I was being sort of facetious initially, but I do think there is an
issue here. The supply-siders argue that investment will be
high as long as government doesn't spook businesses with
too much interference in the free-market. Now I understand
the limitations of this and the critique of Say's L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
B
>ut it's not easy to keep money in a pure hoard. Buy a T-bill, and
>the government may spend it. Buy a stock, and the grandma who sells
>it might use it to buy her Paxil. Put it in the bank and it may
>become working capital.
>
>Doug
>
Point taken. The key word th
I wrote:
> >>It seems to me that no matter what the rationale -- or rationalization
> -- of Bush2's proposed tax cut, it is Keynesian in practice (because
> Keynesian theory makes much more sense than supply-side theory does),
> just as Reagan's tax cut was supply-side in theory but was Keynes
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> that "shrewd bourgeois" he was, JMK
> liked a little inflation so it could disguise real wage cuts from the
> workers. Where did Keynes say that?
I do remember Samuelson saying that in Newsweek back in the
late '70s. I remember part of it exactly: "
Ellen Frank wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>Yeah, but where's it go? And how does an "investor" hoard money?
>>Aside from burying it in the backyard, it means buying a T-bill or
>>depositing it in a bank, which means that it either enters the stream
>>of consumption or gets lent by the ban
Jim writes:
>
>It seems to me that no matter what the rationale -- or rationalization --
>of Bush2's proposed tax cut, it is Keynesian in practice (because
>Keynesian
>theory makes much more sense than supply-side theory does), just as
>Reagan's tax cut was supply-side in theory but was Keynesi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>Yeah, but where's it go? And how does an "investor" hoard money?
>Aside from burying it in the backyard, it means buying a T-bill or
>depositing it in a bank, which means that it either enters the stream
>of consumption or gets lent by the bank to a business for wor
Jim Devine wrote:
>he or she can always spend it on consumption or hoard it. (Just a
>small bit of hoarding can have a multiplied effect.) Or he or she
>can buy a speculative asset at a high price, just to find that it's
>not worth very much after the fact.
Yeah, but where's it go? And how do
Jim Devine wrote:
> As Doug notes, it's quite possible that Keynes himself liked sops
>to the rich if they worked to help the economy.
Speaking of which, Ernest Mandel wrote somewhere - maybe in the
Dictionary of Marxist thought? - that "shrewd bourgeois" he was, JMK
liked a little inflation
At 03:21 PM 1/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>The fact that both of these are regressive doesn't automatically make
>>them anti- or un-Keynesian, since the US 1964 tax cut was also
>>regressive, as were the various investment tax credits that have been
>>promoted by self-styled Ke
Jim Devine wrote:
>The fact that both of these are regressive doesn't automatically
>make them anti- or un-Keynesian, since the US 1964 tax cut was also
>regressive, as were the various investment tax credits that have
>been promoted by self-styled Keynesians.
Why are ITCs un-Keynesian? JMK h
33 matches
Mail list logo
