But Schumpteter took Marx VERY VERY seriously, didn't he? Keynes also taught
Marx (his economics, not his "sociology"). "Useful model"?! Marx's attempts
"were not successful"?! What exactly does this mean? Marx's cycle theory in Vol.
1 ch 25 is not useful or successful? Richard Goodwin would disagree. Marx's
schemes of reproduction aren't useful? Then maybe input-output analysis isn't
either? Marx's circuits of capital aren't useful or successful? Keynes taught
them and believed their concerns and lessons to be similar to his own. What a
load. Samuelson, Baumol, Leontief, et al all took Marx's *economics* very
seriously. And it's not about "right" or "wrong" (though I'm not conceding
anything here). But we can learn more from many of the mistakes of the dead
economists than from the small "truths" of much of contemporary economics. Mat
>From Brad De Long:
>For Paul Krugman "major economist" means someone who built a
>useful model--like Ricardo. Marx's attempts at economic model
>building as we see it were not successful--hence Samuelson's judgment
>of Marx as a minor post-Ricardian.
>For Paul Krugman, Marx is a sociologist...
Brad DeLong
