en-us http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:41:51 GMT Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:41:51 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003899.html > "Tales of New Labour's demise are premature. I doubt the Tories >> will be able >> to eek out anything but a weak minority government." > > So do you think that the upcoming general > election will turn out sort of like the > 1992 election in reverse, with > Labour eeking out some sort > of victory... ====================== Eek - my late mom's response to mice; EKE = to squeeze out, to barely manage, etc. :)]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:16:55 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003898.html writes: > Bhaskar writes: > > "Tales of New Labour's demise are premature. I doubt the Tories > will be able > to eek out anything but a weak minority government." > > Yes, Cameron's seeming inability to close the deal does show up his > weakness. But "New Labour" - the project - that is dead. The Brown > government trundles on offering nothing different, but it is plainly > dead on its feet. So do you think that the upcoming general election will turn out sort of like the 1992 election in reverse, with Labour eeking out some sort of victory, with Gordon Brown presiding, for the next few years, over a weak government? Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > > ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:11:07 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003897.html Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:48:19 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003896.html Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:58:16 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003895.html From: Marv Gandall > Date: March 14, 2010 8:03:13 AM EDT > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Forbes: "There Is No Keynesian Miracle" > Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org > > > On 2010-03-13, at 11:53 PM, Sandy Harris wrote: > >> Interesting article: >> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0301/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html?feed=rss_popstories > ============================== > Harumph. Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:58:43 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003894.html Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:36:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003893.html A public option done through Medicare would be completely immune to > parliamentary challenge. That's a very interesting point, which we've discussed before, but is now more live since the Obamans have been forced (by Brown's election) into using this weird variant of reconciliation to pass even their own thing. Once you've opened the reconciliation can of worms, why not go all the way? FWIW, Rep. Alan Grayson just introduced a bill he calls the Public Option Act: it would allow anyone of any age to buy into Medicare: http://grayson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175363 It's a nice simple bill, only 4 pages long. Like the idea discussed a couple months ago, it's not perfect, but it's got the germ of excitement. And if we're right that it could be passed through reconciliation, that allows a simple answer to the question of WITBD if Obamacare dies: pass this with the votes you've already got right now. And then spend the future improving]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:03:13 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003892.html Interesting article: > http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0301/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html?feed=rss_popstories ============================== Harumph. Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people. Harumph.]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:53:16 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003891.html It's really silly! We get this guy syndicated in the Australian > Financial Review and I have no idea why. Decades ago, Christopher Hitchens, back when he was good, wrote a great lampoon of Paul Johnson. Unfortunately I can't find it online. The part I remember reports Johnson leaving a restaurant in a huff over some derisive remark, saying "That's it, I'm going to my club." His wife, chasing after him, says "But dear, you don't have a club!" SA]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 05:11:30 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003890.html wrote: > Interesting article: > http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0301/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html?feed=rss_popstories > > I wonder how folk here will respond. It's really silly! We get this guy syndicated in the Australian Financial Review and I have no idea why. 'It would be a welcome change to see a serious contender put forward a basic proposition of economic and financial policy such as the following axiom: "There is nothing essentially different between running government finances and those of a family. The same penalties for recklessness and folly apply to both. And, in both, the same prudence, integrity and self-sacrifice will bring success. Anyone who tells you different is deceiving you."' There is really no other argument advanced. He asserts that government deficit spending cannot have any effect, does not say why this counterintuitive proposition might be true, not even giving the usual]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 05:10:03 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003889.html wrote: > Interesting article: > > http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0301/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html?feed=rss_popstories > > I wonder how folk here will respond. > > To me it seems obvious America must be headed for a major financial > disaster, one that makes the recent financial meltdown look like a > minor ripple. Two wars, both of course expensive, trillions given > away to big banks, huge deficits, ... it cannot last. > ___________________________________ > http]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:53:44 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003888.html Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:00:32 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003887.html wrote: That's changed some. I could probbly be available later -- but Jan won't > be, so I'd need a guide. I can't see well enough to follow a route I > haven't been acquainted with for years. Nor can I see the lights well > enough to cross any very wide street even at a stopkight. > I can't imagine that will be a problem, but also haven't heard any arguments against starting at 5:00. No one voted themselves as unavailable then, and it sounds as if it might work a little better for Doug. Is anyone attached to one of the fourth bloc of workshops, which lasts until 6:50 pm (**http://tinyurl.com/yfvl2mn), or to doing anything else during that period? Speak now, or forever hold your peace. -- "Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, mod sceal že mare, že ure męgen lytlaš."]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:31:25 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003886.html > It looks as if it will start Saturday at 5:00 pm sharp (as Carroll can only > make it until 6:00). That's changed some. I could probbly be available later -- but Jan won't be, so I'd need a guide. I can't see well enough to follow a route I haven't been acquainted with for years. Nor can I see the lights well enough to cross any very wide street even at a stopkight. Carrol]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:16:01 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003885.html wrote: When's the lbo-talk Left Forum meetup? I'm on a panel on Saturday from 3-5. > -- "Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, mod sceal že mare, že ure męgen lytlaš."]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:09:07 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003884.html wrote: > BEHIND THE NEWS with Doug Henwood > March 4, 2010 David Cay Johnston on the Austin IRS suicide pilot and how the > rich have largely given up on paying taxes Yanis Varoufakis on the Greek > economic crisis (and Germany s designs) Hey, it was good to hear Yanis Varoufakis. (and also the Xenakis!) He used to teach here at Sydney. His 'Foundations of Economics' book is pretty good for anyone doing intro microeconomics - it's designed as a commentary to a generic textbook, going through the history of the ideas and various critiques. Mike Beggs]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:59:41 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003883.html Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:36:11 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003882.html -------------------------------------------------- Just posted to my radio archive : March 13, 2010 Yves Smith, keeper of the Naked Capitalism blog and author of Econned, on the contribution of the dismal science to the financial crisis, and how Wall Street is worse than ever Robert Pollin of UMass on how to create 18 million new jobs it joins: --------- March 4, 2010 David Cay Johnston on the Austin IRS suicide pilot and how the rich have largely given up on paying taxes Yanis Varoufakis on the Greek economic crisis (and Germany s designs) February 6, 2010 (KPFA version) Mark Brenner, director of Labor Notes, on the state of the working class today (not so great, actually) Bill Fletcher, executive editor of The Black Commentator, on the need for the ]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:25:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003881.html BTW, on Greenwald's larger point, that the public option campaign was > something of a scam -- that the Obama Dem leaders were always > exaggerating their support for the public option, and were always > perfectly willing to sacrifice it as a bargaining chip, thus in effect > lying to and just waiting to betray their base -- I agree with that. > (Yes, SA, you won that bet.) It's just on this technical point about > reconciliation I disagree. A public option done through Medicare would be completely immune to parliamentary challenge. This idea was actually being discussed a few months ago. They don't want to do it because they don't want to do it, not because they can't. My hunch is that Obama's secret deals with provider groups included a pledge of no public option with bargaining power or Medicare rates, in exchange for the providers' acquiescence. SA]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:53:32 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003879.html Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:42:17 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003878.html In response, advocates of the public option kept > arguingthat > the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation -- where only > 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but Obama loyalists scorned that > reconciliation > proposal, > insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that > using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and > politically disastrous." And the Obama loyalists were correct -- on this one technical point. But Greenwald can be forgiven -- I'd say 99% of all people don't understand the current reconciliation maneuver. Which is kind of a damning judgment on Senate rules and current American politics. In simple terms: 1) You can't use reconciliation except to increase or dec]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:31:57 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003880.html I would like to see Chuck Grimes work out in some details the politics implied by his wonderful narrative of research at California. Carrol I second that emotion! John Adams -------------- Thanks for the reads, and kudos. Most of what follows has already been on list before, but here it goes again. I think the larger picture is pretty simple and stark. Land grant colleges and universities were created to serve as research centers to improve agriculture and provide higher education to the non-elite. They were also supposed to educate professionals who served in state and local government agencies, training teachers for public education, training doctors and lawyers, training public health bureaucrats, etc. That was a fine ideal back in the 19th and early 20thC. But agriculture has changed from individually owned farms to corporate held production systems and now part of the global regimes of neoliberal US power. The effect is pretty obvious that food and medicine for example are now ec]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:51:50 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003877.html wrote: > I agree that it's the best option, but why should we accept nothing less than Medicare-for-all? Frankly, when you take a look at the various health care models on offer in the industrialized world, what sticks out is that you can get about equal health outcomes in a fully government-run system like the NHS in the UK, a mostly public social insurance system in Germany, or a mostly private non-profit insurance system in Switzerland or Singapore. Obama's health care proposal could move us closer to the last type of model, and that arguably would be an improvement on the status quo. > > If the subsidies for purchasing private insurance are later increased on the one hand, and if the regulations constricting insurers are strengthened on the other, then we could ev]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:18:07 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003876.html wrote: > From: Doug Henwood > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] showdown over piece of crap > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org > Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:16 PM > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote: > > > If you demand "all or nothing" then you have to be > prepared to go away empty handed sometimes > > Who demanded all exactly? > > Doug > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk >]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:07:41 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003875.html Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:54:54 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003874.html Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:33:44 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003873.html what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senatorsvigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: *sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it*, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:41:47 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003872.html As do I. > > > On 2010-03-10, at 4:24 PM, c b wrote: > > >> Ira Glazer >> >> To Bryan, my heartfelt condolences >> >> ^^^^ >> >> I say the same to Bryan. >> >> Charles Brown >> ___________________________________ >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk >> > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > > > Click here to report this message as SPAM: http://vsp.ateranetworks.com/ReportSpam.php?sid=d85b6055294494191b99eca8f9e8d74e_ec30ed9d72a9baf5f425169692b00b52 > -- Powered by ATERA Networks -- > > >]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:50:29 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003871.html > On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote: > > > If you demand "all or nothing" then you have to be prepared to go > > away empty handed sometimes > > Who demanded all exactly? It's pointless to demand (or beg) anything at all unless there is already in motion an "or else." Then one demands everything and steps up the or else. If the or else becomes thunderous enough, as it did in the u.s. between 1955 and 1965, then 'they' offer something. You take it. And then make more trouble. Eventually things quiet down and one works witho whatever one has gained. I've just descrobed. roughly, the most successful poltical campaign in u.s. histoyr, the struggle for civil rights and an end to Jim Crow. Carrol]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:16:02 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003870.html If you demand "all or nothing" then you have to be prepared to go > away empty handed sometimes Who demanded all exactly? Doug]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:12:12 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003869.html Well then, *whose* victory does it represent? If you demand "all or nothing" then you have to be prepared to go away empty handed sometimes ... maybe my bar has been lowered, but I'm just happy people are talking about it. It's been a long time since people talked about it, and during that time it has gotten progressively worse. Can this be a turning point? Unclear. But: if this bill goes down, then we're worse off than we were yesterday. I heard this story once about how in the old days you'd have to pay everyone off to get a bridge built. Today that's still true, but we don't even get the bridge. > I suggest the answer starts by totaling the amount of > our taxes that would be funneled as subsidies to the > health-insurance bandits. News flash: the US is the most corrupt country in the world. Ho-hum. >> But that doesn't imply any particular answer as to (2). > > That depends whose side you're on. (I thought that was against the rules here?) /jordan]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:19:54 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003868.html > Just a point of clarification: There are two different questions > that should be kept separate - (1) whether the bill represents a > victory for liberals/the left/progressives; and (2) whether right > now it would be better for the bill to pass or to be defeated. For > me, the answer to (1) is clearly no. Well then, *whose* victory does it represent? I suggest the answer starts by totaling the amount of our taxes that would be funneled as subsidies to the health-insurance bandits. > But that doesn't imply any particular answer as to (2). That depends whose side you're on. Shane Mage "L'aprčs-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté." Bardo Thodol]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:01:25 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003867.html > Let's not kid ourselves. If the bill doesn't muster the votes in >> Congress, the administration will shift further to the right as >> Clinton did after his defeat, and demoralized Democratic voters will >> tilt the country further rightwards by ushering in a Republican >> dominated legislature. > > So let's tilt right, lest we tilt right? Just a point of clarification: There are two different questions that should be kept separate - (1) whether the bill represents a victory for liberals/the left/progressives; and (2) whether right now it would be better for the bill to pass or to be defeated. For me, the answer to (1) is clearly no. But that doesn't imply any particular answer as to (2). Personally, I don't find (2) to be a particularly interesting or fruitful question. SA]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:26:22 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003866.html Doug writes: > >> Forcing people to buy shitty insurance may not work out well either >> as policy or as politics. > > Sure, but again: that's a good reason to throw it out completely? > > I think if there's a lesson to be learned over the last 30 years > it's that incremental creeping change is the way to get things done > in this country. It's certainly how we've taken the biggest hits on > our side ... I'm not saying that the Dems understand this -- in > fact, the scope of this bill suggests they haven't learned their > lesson yet. The bill does nothing until 2014. And Obama promised that he would never ask congress to do anything else after he got his bill. So, in the best case, "incremental" change would not even be conceivable until after the 2016 election. Meanwhile, Medicare for All could be implemented instantly. If nothing were done, it would be the major issue of a left antiObama campaign in any future election, an]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:21:33 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003865.html Let's not kid ourselves. If the bill doesn't muster the votes in > Congress, the administration will shift further to the right as > Clinton did after his defeat, and demoralized Democratic voters will > tilt the country further rightwards by ushering in a Republican > dominated legislature. So let's tilt right, lest we tilt right? Doug]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:17:40 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003864.html Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:04:36 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003863.html Some quick and dirty internet research reveals that anywhere from a > quarter to one third of the GDP is based on remittances and > investment by Armenians living outside the country Remittences from noncitizens are not part of the GDP Shane Mage The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010)]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:31:37 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003862.html Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:25:04 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003861.html I was positing that getting a little *starting now* might be a good thing going forward! > > Again, relative to throwing the whole thing out. Which Doug (and apprently every Republican) wants to do. Aren't there quite a few members of the House Progressive Caucus who feel the same? martin]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:08:53 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003860.html > I think if there's a lesson to be learned over the last 30 years it's >> that incremental creeping change is the way to get things done in >> this country. > > The last time we were talking health care reform was almost 20 years > ago. That's not creeping; that's dead! I'm talking about things that have been done *to* us, not done *for* us ... creeping incremental means a little here, a little there, and pretty soon you'll find you have to take your shoes off to go into a polling place. So let me edit that: incremental change is the way for Republicans to get things done in this country. > What's changed this time around? Sorry to mislead: I wasn't saying that health care is getting incremental change with this bill; I was positing that getting a little *starting now* might be a good thing going forward! Again, relative to throwing the whole thing out. Which Doug (and apprently every Republican) wants to do. /jordan]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:07:31 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003859.html I don't mean to diminish in any way the neolib looting of the former USSR from 1990-1998, which was one of the monstrous crimes of the 20th century, but 15% of Soviet GDP was military output. Russia's military spending is around 2.7% of GDP today, so civilian output per person -- as opposed to tanks you can't drive and bullets you can't eat -- is more like 20% higher than 1989. -- DRR ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:59:07 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003858.html >I think if there's a lesson to be learned over the last 30 years >>it's that incremental creeping change is the way to get things done >>in this country. The last time we were talking health care reform was almost 20 years ago. What's changed this time around? This looks like incremental creeping more of the same.]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:27:11 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003857.html wrote: > POLITICO Breaking News: > ----------------------------------------------------- > > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members Friday to brace themselves for > a climatic health care vote as early as next week, warning them to clear > their schedules for next weekend and promising to stay in session until the > landmark vote, people present at the meeting told POLITICO. President Barack > Obama has postponed an overseas trip until March 21, and Pelosi said, "I am > delighted the president will be here for the passage of the bill. It will be > historic." > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk > -- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Mi]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:43:39 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003856.html Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:36:04 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003855.html just out of curiosity, what would be a radical movie? ========================== I think most or all of us would agree art doesn't have to be partisan, ie. radical, to have great value. Having said that, I'm partial to films which realistically portray social relations within and between classes, and those in particular which do so from the perspective of the oppressed and in sympathy with them. That would come closest to what I suppose we would describe as a "radical" movie. Interesting question. What do you and others think?]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:35:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003854.html But: something rather than nothing? Really? It's an idle question, because we Leftists have zero influence on Wall Street's electoral sock-puppets. What we should be doing is preparing for the moment down the road when the contradictions of Obyeltsin-care explode. Because they will. The new state-engineered insurance oligopoly will drive prices into the sky, at the exact moment that wages are stagnant, debts can't be paid, and home equity and 401Ks have been wiped out. Sort of like our own version of Russia's 1998 meltdown -- the moment when resignation turns into rage. -- DRR]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:32:59 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003853.html Same sex marriage? Access to abortions? Loss of civil liberties? > > War on drugs? War on poor people? War on terror? War on airline > passengers? Hey, that's basically just more of the same, not a change in a better direction (except SSM). Doug]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:32:21 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003852.html I don't mean to diminish in any way the neolib looting of the former > USSR > from 1990-1998, which was one of the monstrous crimes of the 20th > century, > but 15% of Soviet GDP was military output. Russia's military > spending is > around 2.7% of GDP today, so civilian output per person -- as > opposed to > tanks you can't drive and bullets you can't eat -- is more like 20% > higher > than 1989. Hmm, maybe, but the military share of Soviet output was pretty sensitive to who was doing the calculations. In any case, the macro figures say nothing about distribution. Given that today's Russia has a higher gini than the U.S. (.437 vs. .372, according to the LIS), it's likely that most, and maybe more than all, of that 20% increment has gone to the folks at the top. Doug]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:26:35 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003851.html > I think if there's a lesson to be learned over the last 30 years >> it's that incremental creeping change is the way to get things done >> in this country. > > Really? Such as? Same sex marriage? Access to abortions? Loss of civil liberties? War on drugs? War on poor people? War on terror? War on airline passengers? /jordan]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:42 GMT http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100308/003850.html I think if there's a lesson to be learned over the last 30 years > it's that incremental creeping change is the way to get things done > in this country. Really? Such as? That's not the way Reagan or Bush worked. Doug]]>