Re: RE: Re: RE: relevance

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't disagree with you about the new economy.  I have a section in my
new book that says pretty much what you say, but the way you said it might
seem offensive to Doug.  I hope not.  He is usually a good sport.

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:32:40PM +0100, Mark Jones wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >
> > yes, but much of the argument gets off track.
>
> I found some of it quite useful.
>
> > Isn't this getting pretty personal, Mark?
>
> No, it's a reflection of exchanges Doug and I have had from time to time. I
> hope that Doug's question will indeed open up a discussion about what is
> relevant, and why. For my part, I'm saying inter alia: There was no
> productivity miracle. There was no New Economy worth speaking of. There was
> a lot of hype about dematerialisation, virtualisation and increased energy
> efficiency, which was mostly nonsense. There is still the fundamental
> reality of capitalism's resource dependency. That's worth talking about.
>
> Mark
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx