> >I think it's because while Ernst and Bellofiore had emphasized >dynamic value alone long ago, it was becoming clear that there was a >sharp divide between temporalists and simultaneists, and many of the >bombastic dismissals of Marx in regards in particular to the falling >rate/mass of profit theory did not hold if one drops the untenable >simultaneist assumption. So there was the problem that a lot of very >smart people now had egg on their face. >
I should add that things probably got pretty hot as a result of Alan Freeman suggesting in the volume that he edited with Carchedi that neo Ricardians shared the same psychopathology as the Walrasians. Of course the psychopathological behavior was the use of timeless, moneyless simultaneous equations. The charge of psychopathology of course ramped things up a bit from Steedman's charge of muddle headed obscurantism, though thoughtful Sraffians such as Gary Mongiovi don't use such language. But I think we can say that things have been very bad in radical economic circles ever since Steedman's very heated attacks on Marxian value theory. There was no room for pluralism in that attack since it plainly stated that the condition for future progress was an abandonment of the theory of labor value. As far as I can see there are now some other major divides in radical economics: 1. regarding the falling rate of profit. a. impossible as a result of viable technical change (Okishio, Roemer, van Parijs, Bowles and Gintis) b. indeterminate depends on the movement of the real wage (Foley, Laibman) c. probable as a result of hypercompetition which is effaced in the Walrasian and Sraffian models, though Shaikh does not seem them as psychopathological d. Okishio like critiques are meaningless because they depend on equilibrium and comparative static assumptions (Ben Fine, Ernst, Carchedi,Perelman, Kliman, Freeman, Reuten). e. no empirical evidence for rising OCC (Edward Wolff, James Devine vs. Moseley). 2. Keynesianism a. in favor of a more redistributive, fiscally aggressive version perhaps on a global scale(Palley, Galbraith, Crotty). b. Keynesianism will fail because as a result of monopolies stimulus is dissipated in inflation rather than increased output (Sweezy, JB Foster). c. will fail because while indeed successful in raising effective demand and employment it lessens the power of the sack (Kalecki, Pollin, Henwood), and the power of the sack is of course the special factor that is needed to release from the potential energy of labor power the kinetic energy of laboring activity. d. deficit financing depends on the accumulation of fictitious capital which over time compounds the underlying problem of profitability that had weakened effective demand in the first place and given rise to the need for the mixed economy (Mattick Sr, Yaffe, Cogoy, Pilling, Moseley). I must say that 1c and d and 2d seem to me to be clearly correct. Rakesh
