>>A contemptuous comment.
>>
>
>R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your
>pet theory as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is
>normal for people to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even
>to think the ideas and reserach programs of others as funda
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>-not an absolute, purely economic impossibility of
>accumulation, but a constant alternation between the overcoming of
>crisis and its reproduction at a higher level until the destruction
>of the underlying social relations by the working class or the
>self-emancipatio
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the
>>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or
>>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in
>>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the
>>rea
>A contemptuous comment.
>
R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your pet theory
as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is normal for people
to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even to think the ideas and
reserach programs of others as fundamentall
>^
>
>CB: Are you saying that probablistic laws are not fuzzier than laws that
>are more definitive ?
Depends on the probablistic laws. The laws of quantum mechanics are as
precise as can be. So too are the laws of Mendelian genetics. Essentially
they can predict the probabilities the
< http://www.atimes.com >
Trashed at home, Enron takes it out on India
By Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI - As the Enron scandal sends wave after shock wave
through the US political system, the international repercussions
of history's most spectacular case of corporate bankruptcy are
just surfacing.
Enr
Chris, Marx puts the dynamism in, in part, by saying that value represents
the cost of REPRODUCTION, not production. This is a key element in his
analysis of the devalorization of capital.
Chris Burford wrote:
> At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
> >This definition of course does not capture t
Rakesh, let Doug speak for himself.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
> subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis. Doug's an eclectic.
> Doug's hostility to value theory derives in part from his rejection
> of the significance of the
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22565] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
> > As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
> > ask - so
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the
>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or
>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in
>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the
>realizatio
Hey, I think this debate is great. I can delete the whole day's
posts without reading them and think of the time I save ;-).
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
> Doug wrote:
>
> > As is always the case with these debates,
> > I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
> > Why is
Carrol Cox wrote:
>It's been a few years since I read your book, but I sort of remember it
>as specifically claiming that Wall Street did NOT allocate investment.
WS doesn't have a large role in funding investment, but firms make
investments based on what the stock market will like.
Doug
I have never thought that the productive/unproductive labor opposition
was important -- but I wonder:
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Devine, James wrote:
>
> >But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
> >involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
>
> But Wall Street is also about arranging th
Ian writes:> In a second look at this [stuff I wrote about cross-pollinating
high theory and high empirics] after reading Doug's post, I'm wondering if
it doesn't unwittingly express some ivory towerism that we need to work
on..."high-theory" always struck me as elitism when I was in grad school
> > Charles Brown wrote:
>> >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
>
>Doug writes:
>> If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
>> with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
>> redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscu
Doug writes:
>
>>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.
>
>See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Callari's
>observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think you
>could ever prove this
Devine, James wrote:
>But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
>involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
But Wall Street is also about arranging the ownership of productive
assets and allocating investment.
Doug
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22576] RE: Re: Historical Materialism
> > Charles Brown wrote:
> > >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
>
> Doug writes:
> > If you
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
Doug writes:
> If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
> with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
> redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.
See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Callari's
observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think you
could ever prove thi
> I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
> session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
> theory as a substitute for politics. Who needs to organize, if the
> OCC will do the work for you?
people can think up lots of reasons to avoid politics. We
Charles Brown wrote:
>Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those
fundamentals, yes. If y
Try a laxative.
mbs
>
>
> I get one or two each day.
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>So I would have
>liked it more if the participants relate this theoretical debate
>to its implications for changing the world.
I will always cherish Antonio Callari's observation at an IWGVT
session at the EEA a few years ago - that value theorists use value
theory as a subs
Ian says:> A great post.
thanks.
> Below is our real problem. [our only one?] How would we fare with such a
disputant?
Ian quotes:> "In recent years, protectionism has also manifested itself in a
somewhat different guise by challenging the moral roots of capitalism and
globalization. At the r
Yes I agree with you about math. I just don't agree that the simpler kind
of circularity applies to political economy in the way you claim.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22565] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
> > As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
> > ask - so
I get one or two each day.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
> ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
> so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I can't speak for those folks, since my mind-reading ability has evaporated,
but the reaso
>>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
>>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
>>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
>
>This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain
>why I reject the LTV.
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22536] value vs. price
> value vs. price
> by Ian Murray
> 07 February 2002 01:47 UTC
>
>
>
> =
>
>
>
> You're right,
> Historical Materialism
>by Justin Schwartz
>07 February 2002 05:59 UTC
>
>
>
>
>>
>>As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most
>>powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very
>>least -- makes no use whatsoever of value theory. What is missing
>>from that book
>
>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain why I
reject the LTV. Th
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22558] Historical Materialism
> Historical Materialism
> by Justin Schwartz
> 07 February 2002 05:59 UTC
>
>
>
>
> >
> >As we've all been remi
>Martin Brown writes:
> > Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your [Justin's??]
>statement. ...<
>
>which statement? and how does Goedel do so?
>
>I'm not great mathematician, but I think that Goedel says that geometry and
>many other sub-fields of mathematics, are, in some se
Historical Materialism
by Justin Schwartz
07 February 2002 05:59 UTC
>
>As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most
>powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very
>least -- makes no use whatsoever of value theory. What is missing
>from that book
Doug wrote:
> As is always the case with these debates,
> I can't resist the urge to ask - so what?
> Why is the value controversy so important?
> Why is it so important for Justin to reject
> it and Rakesh to defend it?
This is highly correlated with the question I was asking to
myself Doug: Wh
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
07 February 2002 06:13 UTC
> >CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike
> >explanation ? ( no fuzzy answers)
> >
>
>The explanations invoked in physics are lawful, i.e., they use preciselt
>formulated lawsto generate specific (if so
Hi
Does anybody know how I can stop these posts. What are they
Karl
- Original Message -
From: "¿ì¸®¾Æ±â´åÄÄ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:03 AM
Subject: [±¤°í]"¿ì¸®¾Æ±â Àß Å°¿ì±â"¸¦ À§ÇÑ Á¤Á¤´ç´çÇÑ »çÀÌÆ® ¿ÀÇ ¾È³» !
::¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾
It's because of the male fetish of obstinacy :-) It's precisely why Justin, myself and
others have
been in the so what camp for years. The mere fact that the debate is interminable
should count
against those who want to cling to the carcass.
Ian
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Henwood"
- Original Message -
From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22551] Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
So Ian seems to have taken Blaug's word for it.
==
No I didn't
Ian
>
As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?
I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the
ultimate implosion of capitalism
So Ian seems to have taken Blaug's word for it.
>
>I took this to mean that the quest to get a price theory out of KM's
>theory of value was a mistake.
Marx was not interested in an equilibrium price theory (Mattick's
chapters in Marx and Keynes are good as are Korsch's chapters in Karl
Marx)
Yes, I guess I was supporting Jim in saying that it is not true that kind of
economic theories under discussion are any more circular than geometry.
Physics is less circular than the F=ma account Jim gave but I think good
political economy can resemble the more holistic description of physics of
m
Powell tells Congress there must be regime change in Iraq
Thu Feb 7,10:29 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United
States might have to act alone to bring about a "regime change"
in Iraq.
Powell told House members Wednesday that President George W. Bush
is considering "
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:53 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:22544] RE: Premises, Circularities etc was Re: His
torical Materialism
Martin, could you please explain these points in greater detail?
M
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22533] RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities
Assuming that ETIR refers to ECONOMIC THEORY IN RETROSPECT, I don't own a
copy. Could you please give
Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.
>Rakesh,
>
>>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>
>>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which
>>potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and
>>necessary form of appearance units
Brown, Martin - ARP (NCI) wrote:
> Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your statement.
>
are you talking about justin's statement that geometry does not involve
circularities and proceeds by axiomatic enumeration? if so, why do you
think gödel's theorem (i presume you are r
>
>And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist
>accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value
>was not
>a) dynamic
>b )systemic?
>
>
>
>Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of
>Marx's approach, (although unimaginative readings of
Martin, could you please explain these points in greater detail?
Martin Brown writes:
> Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your [Justin's??]
statement. ...<
which statement? and how does Goedel do so?
> Re physics. I made an analogy in my earlier email. Here is another F
>>>You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100%
>>>of the production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be
>>>produced cheaper, but the firms who invested in the
>>>oldertechnmologies have these huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake
>>>back.
>>
>>Still don't u
Re geometry. I think Goedel's paradox tends to refute your statement.
Trying to get out of this box, however, has resulted in a tremendous series
of advances in mathematics. I was impressed by this in reading a recent
popular account of the history of mathematics leading up to the solution of
Fer
[this was sent by mistake, before I finished it.]
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory
Fortunately for physics there is an independent determinant of mass, that is
gravitational acceleration which, in turn, is determined by the
gravitational field. So this provides a way out of this particular
circularity. Is it too much to claim that the concepts of labor, labor-power
and the hist
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commod
Class-consciousness and the fundamentality of value
Class-consciousness means awareness of how classes fight for their material
survival in society. Classes are delineated in their general features on the
basis of one relation to property and property is ownership of things by
which the wealth
value vs. price
by Ian Murray
07 February 2002 01:47 UTC
=
You're right, there is no new thing under the Sun of Marx.
CB: This recurrent theme that the ideas that Marx and Engels developed about 150 years
ago MUST be obsolete or old and funky by now is
on 2/7/02 06:30 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> value vs price
> by Devine, James
> 05 February 2002 19:46 UTC
>
>
>> On exploitation, my take is that he noticed that in FACT,
>> throughout history, exploited and oppressed classes struggle
>> against their exploitation and oppres
Critics defending terrorists, PM says
I think Chretien is competing for the most outrageous remarks prize along
with Bush's axis of evil gems.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
By DANIEL LEBLANC and JEFF SALLOT
>From Th
Assuming that ETIR refers to ECONOMIC THEORY IN RETROSPECT, I don't own a
copy. Could you please give one example? I don't see why we're "at an
impasse regarding this issue" if you could provide an example. -- JD
> Ian Murray wrote:
> >>> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has
>
Rakesh,
>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in
>a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.
This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms
I wrote:
>> If I remember correctly, Robinson interpreted Marx's law of value as a
Ricardian labor theory of price. Given that assumption (i.e., that the point
of values was to explain price), _of course_ she should have rejected it.
That's an important reason to reject that misinterpretation, th
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22525] RE: Re: RE: Premises, Circularities etc was Re: Historical
Materialism
Ian Murray wrote:
>>> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the
>
>no, the definition of major concepts such as a "point" and a "line" are
>quite circular.
No, they're primitives, which is different. It doesn't tell you anything you
don't already to know to say that a line is infinite extension in two
dimesnions without breadth, but it's not defined in term
> >Are you following Blaug to accept Popperian
> >falsification, a criterion that makes _all_ social science
> (or almost all) worthless?
>
> Not quite all social science: the social science of
> astrology makes twelve
> falsifiable predictions every morning in my newspaper and
> thus qual
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If I remember correctly, Robinson interpreted Marx's law of value as a
Ricardian labor theory of price. Given that assumption (i.e., that the point
of values was to explain price), _of course_ she should have rejected it.
Th
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
>to suggest it was the whole shebang.
I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks
===
And Q-D incorporates the EET prec
Ian Murray wrote:
>>> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has circularities of
it's own.<<<
I wrote:>>what circularities are those? and why is circularity bad, unless
there is nothing to the theory but circularities? Physics and geometry, for
example, both involve circularities (e
Charles:> Revolutions are like plate tectonic shifts in geology. They
> occur rarely , but their potential and tension are constant
> even through the normal times of small earthquakes ( That's
> dialectics)
Jim D.:yes, but your geology is wrong: tectonic shifts happen all the time, while
it'
< http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/020602gbtest.pdf >
< http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/020602rztest.pdf >
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 19:49 UTC
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other ty
>Are you following Blaug to accept Popperian
>falsification, a criterion that makes _all_ social science (or almost all)
>worthless?
Not quite all social science: the social science of astrology makes twelve
falsifiable predictions every morning in my newspaper and thus qualifies as
a science
LOV and LTV
by Carrol Cox
06 February 2002 20:42 UTC
Charles, some where in Anti-Duhring Engels says that dialectics neither
proves anything nor discovers anything new. Sorry I can't quote it
exactly or give you an exact cite. Some writer used that as a text on
the basis of which he rejected
>Ian Murray wrote:
> > As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has circularities of
> > it's own.
>
>what circularities are those? and why is circularity bad, unless there is
>nothing to the theory but circularities? Physics and geometry, for example,
>both involve circularities (e.g.
>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
>of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?
Not merely. Marx attemptedto use value theory to do a lot of work, e.g., as
part od a theory of crisis, as a component of his account of commodity
fetishism, as an accou
Ian Murray wrote:
> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV [sic] has circularities of
> it's own.
what circularities are those? and why is circularity bad, unless there is
nothing to the theory but circularities? Physics and geometry, for example,
both involve circularities (e.g. force is
The following stories can be found among many other new articles at
http://www.redglobe.info. You can post stories there as well.
++
# Please link to our site
# Please put the link to your sites into our link section
+++
The Times of India
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2002
Yamaha to open motorcycle research unit in China
AFP MONDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2002
TOKYO: Japan's major motorcycle maker Yamaha Motor plans to open a research
and development unit in China in 2003, a news report said on Monday.
The company plans to use
Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
> =
> As Blaug and others have pointed out, the LTV has circularities of
> it's own.
I suspect I'm over my head here both re political economy &
epistemology, or whatever is at stake, But I think I'll butt in anyhow.
In _German Ideology_ (I'm paraphrasin
4. AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH: NEW RACISM BASED ON CLASS, NOT
COLOR
By Nelson Peery
African American History Month, 2002 is celebrated in the midst of
economic, social and political changes that are reshaping our
world. The African Americans, along with the rest of the American
people, a
Note: The human eye cannot see emergence, or rather the outbreak of crisis is
witnessed at its second phase. Hence, prediction based on the law system
discovered by Karl Marx 150 years ago.
"The capitalistic mode of production moves in these two forms of the
antagonism immanent to it from
83 matches
Mail list logo
