- First Section
Bush acted to protect powerful sugar industry
By Edward Alden in Washington
President George W.Bush made the final decision to exclude sugar from the
free trade agreement completed with Australia last weekend, according to
administration and agricultural industry officials
- Original Message -
From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[What's interesting here is the listing of precise numbers each special
interest contributed to produce this result. I wonder if we'll see more
of this in articles like this now that everyone can just look it up in
Charles
the usual warm statements about Britain's
desire to see developing countries gain a fair deal in the negotiations.
But for a real assessment of whose interests British trade policy really
works in, look no further than the attempts to clean up Europe's absurd
sugar market.
In a bizarre reversal
Brazilians Soured by U.S. Sugar Tariffs
By Jon Jeter
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 10, 2003; Page A12
SERTAOZINHO, Brazil -- Wearing a straw hat, shin guards and goggles,
Joaquim Batista dos Santos swings his machete in wide, looping arcs,
hacking away at the eight-foot
I am very confused. It is not that I think it is a waste of time to
measure how many acres of land it takes to produce x calories of
sugar, because sugar was inessential to the English diet; it is this:
doesn't Pomeranz realize China was already blessed with land
suitable for sugar
I personally feel that Britons could have done without sugar in their
tea.But P goes to the other extreme as he sets out to measure
the exact ecological relief Britain obtained from sugar and timber.
He calculates the caloric contribution of sugar to Britain's diet at 14
percent, or possibly
New York Times 27 February 2001
Bitter Strike at Domino Sugar Finally Ends
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Strikers at the mammoth Domino Sugar refinery in Brooklyn agreed
yesterday to return to work, ending the city's longest labor battle
in what even union leaders acknowledged was a stinging loss
PROTECTED]
www.cepr.net
- Original Message -
From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: [stop-imf] Mozambique raw cashew ban -
winning battle with IFIs
MOZAMBIQUE WINS LONG BATTLES
OVER CASHEW NUTS AND SUGAR
MOZAMBIQUE
At 12:37 PM 1/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
OK, now that the IMF and the World Bank have
admitted that they were wrong, will Krugman admit
that he was wrong?
-b
being a superstar means never having to say you're sorry.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
OK, now that the IMF and the World Bank have
admitted that they were wrong, will Krugman admit
that he was wrong?
-b
Robert Naiman
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Economic and Policy Research
I always thought that successful industrial policies were built on
*subsidizing* exports. I've yet
On 31 Jan 01, at 9:53, Brad DeLong wrote:
OK, now that the IMF and the World Bank have
admitted that they were wrong, will Krugman admit
that he was wrong?
-b
Robert Naiman
Senior Policy Analyst
Center for Economic and Policy Research
I always thought that successful industrial
- Original Message -
From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: [stop-imf] Mozambique raw cashew ban -
winning battle with IFIs
MOZAMBIQUE WINS LONG BATTLES
OVER CASHEW NUTS AND SUGAR
MOZAMBIQUE BANS RAW CASHEW
Louis Proyect wrote:
Michael, there are political differences that all the parties seem to
recognize. I don't think its helpful to pretend that they don't exist.
Certainly. But is the point of politics to sharpen those differences,
or to try to come to some common understanding with people who
argument. Unfortunately, it's hard to live up
to my own standards on this one.)
Although I agree withg Sid Mintz on the capitalist nature of the sugar
plantation system, one does not need to define slaves as proletarians (per
Mintz, CLR James, et al.) to make thbe argument in line with classical
Michael P. wrote:
Jim, I think that you make a powerful point that production in the
periphery is important. Did Brenner ever deny that?
I don't know which Jim this is for. But because I'm an egomaniac, I'll
assume it's for me.
As far as I can tell (since I've not read all his works), Brenner
Lou, I hope that this post was an accident, spilling over from your debate on
your list. It has no place here.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Carrol:
As to my last post, I allowed myself to become too irritated by the
your last two posts to pen-l and gave a bungled response. I withdraw
that post.
Carrol:
As to my last post, I allowed myself to become too irritated by the
your last two posts to pen-l and gave a bungled response. I withdraw
that post.
Do yourself a favor and don't read what I write on these questions, since
it will only irritate you further. For somebody in an advanced
Louis Proyect wrote:
Carrol, I am afraid that you have lost track of what this debate is about.
Let me remind you.
Lou, what you never acknowledged was that the debate was on a
dozen different things, that I never joined *most* of those debates
but intervened on the following points *only*:
Brazilian sugar
plantations, etc., were not production!
Brenner's second argument -- in fact, as I see it, the real reason for
making the first argument (origins of cap.) -- is what I call classical
Eurocentric diffusionism. Capitalism has been spreading to the non-European
world and as
Jim Devine:
If you studied with Johnny Murra, you should know a lot more about Latin
America than you give evidence of knowing, but thats beside the point which
is:
Although I agree withg Sid Mintz on the capitalist nature of the sugar
plantation system, one does not need to define slaves
Michael Perelman wrote:
Jim's restatement of the Brenner thesis coincides with what Marx said and
what
Ellen Wood said. I think the problem with this whole debate is that we
have a
tendency to label individuals as right or wrong and then apply these
labels in
a slap dash way without any feel for
Jim, I think that you make a powerful point that production in the
periphery is important. Did Brenner ever deny that?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I took intro to anthro at Yale.)
there are several points in Mintz, that correspond to his paragraphs:
1) he uses Marxist definitions of slaves, serfs, and proletarians.
2) sugar slaves and European free laborers were linked as part of an
international division of labor, benefiting
Louis Proyect wrote:
Robert Brenner:
"...a few questions need to be asked (about Caribbean sugar production).
First, how was the 'so-called primitive accumulation of capital'
accomplished? In other words, did the actual separation of the population
of small farmers from the land act
I understand that there are political differences between the different
participants. That is why I lumped Frank, Wood, Wallerstein .
My point was that you can profit from people whose politics you reject. Keynes,
for example, had some awful politics. He was an elitist snob, who sneered
or putting them on a pedestal and declaring that they are
altogether correct.
I guess that's what they mean by sectarianism.
Jim Devine wrote:
3) the slave sugar plantation system was economically conservative (it
"changed little"), as fitting with the hypothesis that merchant
capital
*Not* common among marxists. This is utterly incoherent, and it is
difficult to imagine that the author of this paragraph would have much
of any interest to say on the laws of motion of the capitalist system.
Lou must be pulling our leg. It certainly is utterly irrelevant to *any*
of the pen-l
Robert Brenner:
"...a few questions need to be asked (about Caribbean sugar production).
First, how was the 'so-called primitive accumulation of capital'
accomplished? In other words, did the actual separation of the population
of small farmers from the land actually take place
28 matches
Mail list logo
