From: William S. Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20686] Re: growing inequality
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:46:14 -0600
snip
As a representative of an administration that supported the illegal
destruction of unions, among other
Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: F G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20690] Re: Re: growing inequality
From: William S. Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED
-Original Message-
From: F G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20690] Re: Re: growing inequality
From: William S. Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L
On Monday, December 17, 2001 at 10:01:31 (-0800) Devine, James writes:
In general, I agree with the sentiments of Bill and F.G. But it should be
noted that once you get beyond the start of Jamie Galbraith's book, it's
incredibly hard to read. Even professional economists have a hard time
PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20690] Re: Re: growing inequality
From: William S. Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20686] Re: growing inequality
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:46:14 -0600
snip
On Monday, December 17, 2001 at 10:01:31 (-0800) Devine, James writes:
In general, I agree with the sentiments of Bill and F.G. But it should be
noted that once you get beyond the start of Jamie Galbraith's book, it's
incredibly hard to read. Even professional economists have a hard time
Hmm, I've read most of it and did not find it too difficult. Perhaps
not being a professional economist makes it easier:-). What did
you find hard to read?
that's probably it. But it's been awhile since I read the book, so I don't
remember exactly why it was obscure.
Jim Devine [EMAIL
there were some similarities. But Jamie didn't make it very clear.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Michael Perelman writes:
I thought that it was something like the New Industrial State
in terms of
its structure, where the one sector looked like his
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
if Galbraith is calling for big new deficits, then how does he
guarantee that the long bond will not act unfavorably?
It's not been acting so well as it is:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^TNXd=ct=6ml=onz=bq=l.
Doug
Doug - Interesting chart. I'd be interested in your 'reading' of it.
Mat
It's not been acting so well as it is:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^TNXd=ct=6ml=onz=bq=l.
Doug
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Doug - Interesting chart. I'd be interested in your 'reading' of it.
The chatter in the market is that the rise in yields reflects
expectations of a quick and strong recovery, and a Fed tightening
within a year. Who knows if that's what's really happening, but
that's
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Doug - Interesting chart. I'd be interested in your 'reading' of it.
The chatter in the market is that the rise in yields reflects
expectations of a quick and strong recovery, and a Fed tightening
within a year. Who knows if that's what's really happening, but
that's
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Doug - Interesting chart. I'd be interested in your 'reading' of it.
The chatter in the market is that the rise in yields reflects
expectations of a quick and strong recovery, and a Fed tightening
within a year. Who knows if that's what's
Michael Perelman wrote:
The article states:
The richest 10 percent of American households, economists point
out, have 34.5 percent more financial wealth than the average
family.
I wonder who the average family is.
Probably it is misleading to focus on
14 matches
Mail list logo
