>I don't know very much about accounting, but what I was thinking of is as
>follows: there's a big issue of how "one time charges" are counted in
>reporting earnings. Are they discounted (minimized) the way Enron did and
>other high-flyers do? or are they simply subtracted from current earnings?
A
I wrote:
>>The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle [to the
precautionary principle] should be applied to accounting (in the face of new
corporate forms that stretch traditional accounting norms)... <<
Daniel Davies writes: > I think what you may be talking about is the
>The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should be
>applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch
>traditional accounting norms).
>But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive accumulate-to-compete
>or compete-to-accumulate principle
Mat, I see another dimension to your statement about the lack of regulation
and the lack of sustainability. In my Natural Instability book I made the
case that increasing pressure on the input side -- such as through higher
wages or greater environmental restrictions -- can create a simulated
com
Thanks! Could you post some specific references for Ravetz and Funtowicz?
I agree with a lot (I think most) of the specifics you raise, but such a
diffuse critique runs the risk of not communicating itself beyond the small
circle of people who go through the whole thing systematically. Is there
- Original Message -
From: "Forstater, Mathew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint
appt
in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of
individual
and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs,
after
going t
ut the earth if we continue on the present path]?"
Mat
-Original Message-
From: Peter Dorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:21908] Re: RE: precautionary principle
Mat,
How do you deal with the argument that the a
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Dorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(The more that comes out, the more the whole business
begins to look like a vast, interconnected Ponzi scam. Look at the
story in
the NYT today about the "secret" investment fund marketed on Wall
St., which
paid dividends out
Mat,
How do you deal with the argument that the apparent tradeoff between growth
(or full employment) and the environment is due to the failure of full cost
internalization? The standard neoclassical position is that, for markets to
function properly, they have to reflect true social costs and b
Thanks for the plug, Jim. At another point in the manuscript, I mention in
passing the role of Frank Knight in developing the distinction between risk and
fundamental uncertainty. Knight's claim was that entrepreneurship is the
specialty of people with an abnormal tolerance for plunging into the
Jim, I have thought about this recently and come to the conclusion that,
first, unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both
macroeconomically unsatisfactory and environmentally unsustainable.
Second, traditional policy approaches to both unemployment and
environmental degradation are insuffi
11 matches
Mail list logo
