Sides? (was Re: the terrorist bombings in London

[Will Layman]

Is "rock & role" a pun here, just because it's uttered on the P-List?

What does Adam Smith's knowledge of pop stars have to do with the point
being made here?

How can western pop music, itself, be productive or unproductive "of
economic growth in African economies"?  And what does that have to do with
the opinions expressed by musicians on political or economic issues?

Finally, is the P-list now just the home to random rantings?

Losing faith,

Will

On 7/12/05 7:09 PM, "terrence oflattery" <terrenceoflattery at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Yd=C + 1 + G + [EX - IM]
>  
>  It's got nothing whatever to do with Adam Smith, who wouldn't know a Firm
> from a pin cushion, or rock & role, or some rich pop star trying to save his
> career and the rain forest. Any idiot can read the NY Times. Africa is poor.
> How will it accumulate capital? How will its productive hours increase? How
> will technology add to productivity,  existing capital and labor? What the
> fuck does Elton John or the Beastie Boyz know about how to grow an economy?
> Nil, nada, nunca, not a fuckin thing. Pop stars need to sell records to young
> kids. Music, of this sort, is counter productive to the promotion of economic
> growth in the African economies. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Sting hurt
> the rain forest more than any one else in the 20th century.
>  
> Great work if you can get it.
> ...a rock & roll billionaire from the usa ...
> 
> Joel Katz <mittelwerk at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> personally, i don't see anything wrong with neo-feudalism, pay-as-you-go
>> social services, for-profit organ donation, and an indentured military
>> composed of darkies wanting citizenship and convicts wanting fresh air. but
>> hey, the cellphones will still be really cool! you can photograph yourself
>> being blown up on the bus!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> >From: François Monti
>>> >To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> >Subject: Re: Sides? (was Re: the terrorist bombings in London
>>> >Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:04:43 +0200
>>> >
>>> >Paul Mackin wrote:
>>> >
>>>>> >>>Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a >supply
>>>>> >>>and demand economy, laissez fairer, political
>>>>> >>>self-determination, democracy (these *are* the next
>>>>> >>>steps after debt relief).
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Not real! ly sure about this. Perhaps this IS the precise junction in
>>>> >>history at which to begin the switch from the Capitalistic
>>>> >>politico-economic system to the more equitable Unicornistic p-e system.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>P.
>>> >
>>> >I would actually be interested in knowing whether "laissez faire" has ever
>>> >been "de rigueur" over the last 250 years. I see protectionism and
>>> >subventions; black ships and win-lose deals. Perhaps this is the precise
>>> >junction in history at which to begin the switch from the Statist
>>> >politico-economic system to "laissez faire".
>>> >
>>> >The problem is not capitalism, it is State-enforced capitalism and
>>> >State-enforced socialism.
>>> >
>>> >François
>>> >
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
>> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20050712/24babedf/attachment.html>