On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 21:54:59 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Jim, my T-B burned up a few years ago, when our house burned. Do you
>have a reference re: his line on instability when and economy is
>Dept I-driven?
Jim, as far as I can tell, Tugan-Baranowsky never said that the
process of growth led by department I (because dept. II is
stagnant) became more unstable. All he said was that growth
*could happen* despite a stagnant demand for consumer goods
(contrary to the underconsumptionists of his day), so that
dept. I was "relatively autonomous." I was the
one who added the twist about this process becoming more
unstable over time (in my 1983 RRPE article on the Depression)
though Philipe Van Parijs has a note in the same issue of
the magazine that makes a similar point.
I have never read T-B. My knowledge of him comes completely
from secondary sources, especially Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST
DEVELOPMENT.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
