>
> >"[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
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"
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
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
>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
>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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
