Brad wrote:
Now I am a card-carrying neoliberal: a believer that a bet on
increased international economic integration is our best hope for
rapidly moving to a truly human world, an advocate of NAFTA and GATT,
a former not-very-senior official in the Bentsen and Rubin Treasury
Departments, and a
Brad wrote:
> >In 1960 left-wing intellectuals and politicians argued that
> >the close economic links between Batista's Cuba and the United States
> >was impoverishing Cuba. Today everyone--left, right, and
> >center--agrees that it is the lack of close economic links with the
> >U.S. that impove
Jim Devine asked,
> 2) Tom W., could you give a 25-word-or-less summary of the "lump of
> labor fallacy" and a "25-word-or-less" summary of _why_ it's a
> fallacy. Maybe I'm dumb, but I can't seem to get my mind around what the
> target of the main stream of your missives is. Maybe you give an Ec
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Brad De Long wrote:
> Neoliberals hope that multinational corporations, financial analysts,
> bond-fund managers, and bond raters will in the end be able to apply
> some constructive pressure to improve the situation: better the
> discipline of the world market than no dis
>
>
> And what about two million in prison -- do they outnumber the gardeners?
>
No. But in a decade they may outnumber the farmers and farm laborers.
Brad DeLong
>
>this is an apt description of the whole neoliberal vision of
>trickle-down. The neoliberal view says "if you want to make an
>omelette (the neoliberal market utopia), you've got to break eggs
>(peoples' lives, traditions, communities, etc.)" Hypothetical
>compensation will make up for the a
>
> >In 1960 left-wing intellectuals and politicians argued that
>>the close economic links between Batista's Cuba and the United States
>>was impoverishing Cuba. Today everyone--left, right, and
>>center--agrees that it is the lack of close economic links with the
> >U.S. that impoverishing Cub
Jim Devine wrote:
> 2) Tom W., could you give a 25-word-or-less summary of the "lump of labor
> fallacy" and a "25-word-or-less" summary of _why_ it's a fallacy. Maybe I'm
> dumb, but I can't seem to get my mind around what the target of the main
> stream of your missives is. Maybe you give an
Brad De Long wrote:
>
>
> Well, we haven't, have we? The physiocrats in 1770 were really
> worried about mass urban unemployment that would follow should the
> agricultural share of the French labor force drop below 70%. Today 2%
> (IIRC) of our labor force is engaged in agriculture as farmers
At 03:02 AM 2/12/00 +1100, you wrote:
> We
>gotta stop, for instance, treating those tens of millions of SE Asians who
>got deposited on the slagheap in '97/'98 as the cost of progress. It
>eventually comes to look like we're breaking eggs so that we can break more
>eggs later.
this is an ap
G'day Brad,
The US has low unemployment for a variety of reasons, I'd've thought. Some
may have to do with the domestic 'labour cost' strata, such that you have an
extraordinary number of 'working poor' (Greider's book comes to mind). And
more has to do with 'globalism' - a salient component of
>It is important not to rely on too literal an interpretation of this bit of
>"Marxish" doctrine. Impoverishment has to be seen in a dialectical manner.
In other words, "impoverishment" is simply not happening.
>we will be facing a general political and economic situation
>where "impoverishment"
K
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/2/00 3:19 pm, Brad De Long at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, we haven't, have we? The physiocrats in 1770 were really
> worried about mass urban unemployment that would follow should the
> agricultural share
>Microsoft Timeline
>Business @ the Speed of Thought
>Remarks by Bill Gates
>Georgetown University School of Business
>March 24, 1999
>
>QUESTION: During the course of the presentation, you mentioned job
>reduction a number of times. While, as business students, we can
14 matches
Mail list logo
