>From: Michael Yates <mikey+ at pitt.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: small not beautiful
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:42:48 -0400
>
>Jan,
>
>You will get a more balanced view of one of the types of new technology
>you discuss, namely numerically controlled machines, if you take a look
>at works by Harry Braverman, Harley Shaiken, and David Noble.
Mr Yates, Neither I nor today's WSJ is concerned with punch card technology. I have not read any analysis by these people, Shaiken has been on tv.
New
>technology is always embedded in a set of class relationships, and it is
>really not proper to talk about increases in productivity without
>considering these relationships.
"Proper" if one wants to be a leftist business observer? What are the other rules for list participation? Anways, I can't bite on the crumb of this post.
JC
>
>jan carowan wrote:
> >
> > Mr Forstater,
> >
> > Why rant against the new economy if your ideal is Kropotkin's
> > decentralisation? Is it not the new technology that is now effecting the
> > greatest decentralisation of information in human history? Only now
>could
> > have a "radical" such as Mr Henwood reached such a mass audience. Hasn't
>his
> > fame here even earned him free advertising spots on television to raise
> > questions about how newly new the new economy is? And who is a
>idealistic
> > Russian price compared to a technology that brings us information at
> > enormous speed and almost infinite scale?
> >
> > By the way, I note that Mr Wray, Mr Henwood and you seem not interested
>in
> > the question of whether the productivity measures or consumer price
>index is
> > biased against the high technology revolution.
> >
> > Do leftist business observers feel more comfortable with dismal
>scientists?
> >
> > Today's Wall Street Journal (which I suppose leftist business observers
> > read) reports on the well known revolutionary impact of programmable
>machine
> > tools, while also noting that the consumer price index does not take
>account
> > of machines whose duty and durability have been extended and thus
>require
> > fewer repairs and less service Indeed fewer visits to the service
>station
> > means less GDP to those who take these measures seriously.
> >
> > To the outside observer, it is a great paradox indeed that leftist
>business
> > observers pooh-pooh the revolutionary impact of the radical new
>innovations
> > of the third industrial revolution while exploring every new possibility
> > they open up for self promotion.
> >
> > What exactly is the source of this animus against technology that makes
>you
> > all rant so and call up the memories of simple minded political utopians
>of
> > the past?
> >
> > JC
> >
> > >From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM at umkc.edu>
> > >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > >To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > >Subject: RE: small not beautiful
> > >Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 23:23:43 -0500
> >
> > >I guess the 'small is beautiful' part is not meant as a comment on
> > >Schumacher,
> > >but just reflects the journalistic preference for catchy phrases? Mat
> > >From: Doug Henwood [mailto:dhenwood at panix.com]
> > >SMALL IS NOT BEAUTIFUL
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > http://profiles.msn.com.
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.