"i see my argument as largely influenced by classical/marxian/harrodian dynamics. i don't see what your actual argument is."
Nathan, Of course not. My interpretation of Marx is entirely different from yours if you can assimilate Marx to classical and harrodian dynamics. I haven't presented my "actual argument" here. I'm only responding to random sniping. I've presented my actual argument in a book manuscript and an article-length summary that you are welcome to read if you really want to know my actual argument rather than shadow box with conjectures about what my argument is. Why will stimulating aggregate demand have a negative effect? Because there is no such sensuous real-world thing as "aggregate demand." Aggregate demand is an analytical concept (as is excess capacity). They have their uses but economists seem to think you can jump from one fork to the other of the analytical/synthetic divide more or less at your convenience. It doesn't work that way. I don't have to make a political argument about what business interests will do because Michal Kalecki already did. I think he was right. But somebody recently used an expression I like, "privatized Keynesianism" that might explain my qualms about the prospects for "stimulus" to boost aggregate demand. The conduits through which any stimulus would have to flow have been captured by private interests -- the military industrial complex, etc. On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM, nathan tankus <[email protected] > wrote: > "You're talking about the economy as if it weren't a dynamic evolving > thing. > -- or more precisely AS IF its dynamism and evolution were more or less > incidental, almost ornamental." > > see this is funny to me because i see my argument as largely > influenced by classical/marxian/harrodian dynamics. i don't see what > your actual argument is. note that i didn't say anything about > stimulating aggregate demand, i supported a policy for specifically > increasing the demand for labor, or more accurately, making the demand > for labor inelastic below a certain wage level. > > "The obsolescence in play today has to > do with the social relations of production and reproduction, not with > physical plant and machinery." > > right but what does that mean? why will stimulating aggregate demand > (explicitly not something i support) have a negative effect? are you > talking about an "obsolescence function" similar to the one michael > hudson discusses (see > here: > http://michael-hudson.com/1997/05/theories-of-economic-obsolescence-revisited/ > ) > for human labor? are you making a political argument about business > interests tolerance of a jobs program? it's hard to defend my thinking > against a position i don't know. > > -- > -Nathan Tankus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
