GE, LTV, & PEN-L Db8s

[GSKILLMAN@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

   I'm deliberately sending this post to PEN-L outside the context of
my current exchange with Jim Devine, although the latter provides
me with the most recent evidence for some growing convictions I have
about the inherent limitations (as well as the intrinsic benefits) of
of discussion and debate in this medium.  So the following are
thoughts about form and forum rather than issues of substance.  I'd
be interested in what other PEN'rs think.

1.  PEN is a great medium for raising issues, but a terrible one for
resolving them.

     The network has been, for me, an almost daily boon, providing a
constant stream of reading suggestions, topic ideas, challenges to
received wisdom, entertainment, and in one case already, the
inducement for what promises soon to be a publication. [Not a small
consideration for us untenured types.]  I silently thank Mike
Perelman just about every time I turn on the computer.  Allin's
10-part analysis and defense of the LTV is just the most recent
example of the unexpected dividends yielded by participation in PEN.

    And repeatedly, topics for debate on issues of theory (Roemer vs.
Marx, GE vs. LTV, formal game theory vs. non-formal class analysis)
and policy (NAFTA and trade, guaranteed minimum income) arise which
are so irresistible that despite pressing time constraints I'm drawn
into what sometimes turns out to be a many-sided and prolonged debate.
In every case I've learned something from the interaction.