Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Lisa & Ian Murray
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

Re: Re: Theu US and Miami exiles: was The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Stephen E Philion
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > At 12:52 PM 2/11/00 -1000, you wrote: > >On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > > > > > Of course, the US (and especially the anti-Castro Cubans of Miami) > > wants to > > > bring back the "good old days" of the 1950s, with the anti-Castro Cubans > > >

Re: Theu US and Miami exiles: was The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Jim Devine
At 12:52 PM 2/11/00 -1000, you wrote: >On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > > > Of course, the US (and especially the anti-Castro Cubans of Miami) > wants to > > bring back the "good old days" of the 1950s, with the anti-Castro Cubans > > replacing Batista and the mafia. > > > > Jim Devine [E

neoliberalism (was: The Bill of Gates fallacy)

2000-02-13 Thread Jim Devine
>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 bel

Theu US and Miami exiles: was The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Stephen E Philion
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Jim Devine wrote: > Of course, the US (and especially the anti-Castro Cubans of Miami) wants to > bring back the "good old days" of the 1950s, with the anti-Castro Cubans > replacing Batista and the mafia. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jde

Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Jim Devine
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

Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Timework Web
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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-13 Thread Dennis R Redmond
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

Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Brad De Long
> > > 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

The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Louis Proyect
Brad: >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 Cuba

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Brad De Long
> >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

Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Brad De Long
> > >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

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Carrol Cox
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

Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Eugene Coyle
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

Re: Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Jim Devine
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

The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Louis Proyect
>>2. The third world will consist of pockets of trade, commerce and >>industrialization not unlike the East Coast development zones in China.. > >That's three billion people. False. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)

Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Rob Schaap
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

Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Brad De Long
>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"

Re: Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Michael Keaney
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

Re: The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Brad De Long
>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

The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Louis Proyect
Rob: >Then there's the Marxish reservation that you can't go around impoverishing >the rest of the world for long, seeing as how you have to grow markets if >you want to grow profits. It is important not to rely on too literal an interpretation of this bit of "Marxish" doctrine. Impoverishment ha

The Bill of Gates fallacy

2000-02-11 Thread Timework Web
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 all apprec