Apologies for that. That message was supposed to go to someone else about an entirely different matter, although I admit it makes for amusing reading, :-). Barkley Rosser On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:12:31 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> wrote:
> Jeremy,
> Whom should I call? (I am willing.)
> Barkley Rosser
> On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:48:00 -0400 Max Sawicky
> <sawicky at epinet.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > >. . . But I can't
> > >help but think that the right has scored a tremendous
> > >victory in turning all political discourse into the
> > >politics of blowjobs. . . .
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >If we "stand by" Clinton we get
> > >to defend blowjobs in office, if we "dump him" then we
> > >have validated blowjob politics as a viable tool of the
> > >right to use against liberals/lefties who manage to get
> > >elected.
> >
> > If he's dumped I think the debate goes back
> > to issues, which would be a good thing. The
> > question is how much of it rubs off on the
> > elections this year.
> >
> > > We are going to have a difficult time finding
> > >a "liberal" candidate who doesn't and never has done
> > >drugs, doesn't get blown by the wrong people, doesn't
> > >cheat on his taxes, and who has never taken a dime from
> > >s.o. with his/her hands on a business deal, isn't
> > >married to s.o. who has been, shall we say "aggressive"
> > >in business (cf. Ferraro), who looks good in a tank and
> > >wasn't governor when a black rapist was paroled (cf.
> > >Dukakis).
> >
> > Perhaps not, but the issue is really whether
> > we can have one who isn't so easy to catch
> > because his/her behavior isn't so flagrant.
> > Here the answer I'd say is yes. BTW, Wellstone
> > is the cleanest baby you've ever seen. Note
> > also that the bad guys had Barney Frank right
> > where he wanted them, but he beat them and
> > is in better shape than ever.
> >
> > >That's an exiguous universe. If the world is
> > >at a point where every liberal gets the Clinton
> > >treatment and every rightwinger's peccadilloes are
> > >ignored, then we are at a point where liberal reform is
> > >impossible. Which might in fact be the case.
> >
> > It has occurred to me, in the same vein, that
> > Republican control over extensive areas of the
> > State is enabling them to delegalize the Democratic
> > Party, for all practical purposes. If this is what
> > comes to pass, then I would start agreeing with
> > Louis much more often.
> >
> > >. . .
> > >2. It was suggested that I am a reactionary sell
> > >out. . . .
> >
> > Moral assaults usually come from hypocrites
> > who lack substantive arguments, among other
> > virtues. I shouldnt' worry about it.
> >
> > > . . .
> > >4. Max asked "what else" could be done besides Tobin
> > >taxes. May I point out that the GT recommends more
> > >equal distribution of purchasing power (propensity to
> > >consume). Worldwide minimum wage, worldwide GINI
> > >coefficient policies, might be a good place to start.
> >
> > Min wage is in play now. Equalizing purchasing
> > power via taxes is not. It's worth talking about,
> > but the prior argument that has to be sold is
> > stimulating consumption. Third, the connection
> > of either of these to the global financial
> > events seems weak.
> >
> > >Note that bourgeois environmental reformism is
> > >redistributive to the extent A) that it fosters
> > >investment that might not otherwise occur and B)
> > >provides benefits for all classes, sometimes more for
> > >the poor than for the rich (simply because the poor are
> > >more numerous). But if you have a broken leg and can't
> >
> > Most research concludes the contrary. The
> > net benefits tend to be regressive. But
> > what does this have to do with responses
> > to the global financial situation?
> >
> > >see a doctor I'm not sure what good it does to be
> > >breathing ozone-free air. I suppose it helps "at the
> > >margin." But it's the case that in US electoral
> > >politics you have to get to the middle class, which
> > >deals more favorably with the environment than with the
> > >poor.
> > >
> > >Oh yes, and Max--you can socialize means of production
> > >gradually without going to full central planning. You
> >
> > Sure, but the whole is much different than
> > a set of the parts. Planning an economy
> > is light-years from running an enterprise,
> > even a very large one.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with public enterprise.
> > A fair part of my time is devoted to the
> > privatization issue. Gas and water socialism
> > is fine with me.
> >
> > >know, an oil company here, a utility there. Put the
> > >profits into something useful. Why should OPEC driven
> > >rents realized by domestic companies (of whatever
> > >nation) "at the margin" go into more oil exploration?
> > >Why not put 'em into something useful like friendly
> > >fuels. (Note: separate topic: why state-owned
> > >companies are a problem for the state).
> >
> > O.K. by me.
> >
> > >But as I used to tell people when I was writing about
> > >the oil industry: you can't nationalize the oil
> > >industry without first nationalizing the goverment.
> >
> > Taxing it should be sufficient.
> >
> > MBS
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb at jmu.edu
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu