"My interpretation of Marx is entirely different from yours if you can assimilate Marx to classical and harrodian dynamics."
i don't have an interpretation of marx. i've read the works of others who've interpreted marx and i've read some of marx, but i haven't read enough of marx (in my own opinion) to have an interpretation of marx. "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." i didn't mean to be insulting whith the "actual argument" comment. i was unaware of your previous writings on the subject and would be happy to read them (although that would mean a response would take quite a bit longer). i hope you don't feel that i was "random[ly] sniping" at you. i was merely trying to understand your position. "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." fair enough. this is a good methodological critique. i will be more careful in the future. "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." here i think we're getting to the crux of the matter. this is interesting and while i think Kalecki's "political aspects of full employment" paper is a classic, it is striking that many radical (marxian and non-marxian alike) cite a 68 year old paper as covering all that we need to know about the political implications of economic policies. there is a good political science/sociology/history literature out there on these subjects that radical economists would almost surely benefit from. personally, most of my current views come from a mixture of minskyan (and other heterodox) economics and radical social and political theory from these other disciplines (i'm thinking especially of the investment theory of politics). this is primarily where my interests as an economist (political economist?) come from. -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
