Some time ago Jim gave us this reference. If you are interested in
Cockshott's analysis of the socialist calculation debate, high-tech
socialism e-democracy more generally, see his web site:
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
At 09:37 PM 5/24/2009, Jim Farmelant wrote:
Paul Cockshott on
Not that I endorse an exclusive concentration on economic
calculation, but Cockschott's overall perspective can be found here:
21st Century Marxism
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/21stCenturyMarxism.htm
At 11:02 AM 9/22/2009, Ralph Dumain wrote:
Some time ago Jim gave us this reference.
wrote:
From: Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
socialist calculation debate revisited
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis
:
From: Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid
Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate revisited
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues
raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired
marxism-thaxis
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
socialist calculation debate revisited
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu,
marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc
I'm not holding my breath. Bad idea for Zen practice anyway.
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, c b cb31...@gmail.com wrote:
From: c b cb31...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
socialist calculation debate revisited
To: Forum for the discussion
CB: Not to be cute, but isn't economics the science of supply and
distribution of goods ?
I'm wondering now how to capture 'services' in my use of the term
'logistics', since so much seems to be dependent on them. I guess
logistics is supposed to be the management of such economies. But then
It's not a Nobel Prize. It's Nobel MEMORIAL Prize. Not sure the point of the
question about the creation of the Prize (?) in a context of the fear of the
success of socialism, idea is that the Prize was meant to shore up capitalism
by honoring its apologists?
Actually the prize in economics
CeJ jannuzi at gmail.com
CB: What's logistics ?
Basically, the science of how an economy supplies and distributes goods.
^^^
CB: Not to be cute, but isn't economics the science of supply and
distribution of goods ?
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
CeJ jannuzi at gmail.com
CB: Think about it. To admit that macroeconomics can be understood
scientifically is to admit that there can be macroeconomic planning,
ie. centralized planning, that Hayek is wrong. So, the bourgeoisie are
always going to be leery of a prize for the science of economics.
cb31...@gmail.com wrote:
From: c b cb31...@gmail.com
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the
socialist calculation debate
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 3:13 PM
CeJ jannuzi
CeJ jannuzi
If Cockshott had waited a bit more, he might not look the complete
fool he does here. This is still largely an argument based on the idea
that logistics is economics turned into a hard science. That would
CeJ jannuzi
The Nobel Prize in Economics is arguably
not a real Nobel Prize since Alfred Nobel
made no provision for such a prize in his
will. It was instead established by the
Bank of Sweden in the late 1960s
CB: What's logistics ?
Basically, the science of how an economy supplies and distributes goods.
Kantorovich and others work in linear programming has application for logistics.
One take on Hayek's so-called arguments against central planning is
that he is saying central planning requires too
If Cockshott had waited a bit more, he might not look the complete
fool he does here. This is still largely an argument based on the idea
that logistics is economics turned into a hard science. That would be
logistics on a macro-economic scale. That may be, but it is no more a
science of political
Also, it might interesting to note here that Koopmans won the prize
the same year (1975), and the work of Koopmans and Kantorovich really
follows from the first winner of the prize, Tinbergen. And Frisch btw
won it at the same time as Tinbergen. Although Kantorovich may be the
only 'Soviet' here,
The Nobel Prize in Economics is arguably
not a real Nobel Prize since Alfred Nobel
made no provision for such a prize in his
will. It was instead established by the
Bank of Sweden in the late 1960s as a Prize
in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
Yeah most people don't recall
Here's a question. How many Cambridge Keynesians have ever won the
economic prize?
Robinson seems to have got herself on the WRONG side of a major
argument/controversy with Samuelson and Solow. To the personal level.
She even came up with new cateogrical descriptors for Samuelson (while
Solow was
Paul Cockshott on how the Soviet economist and mathematician,
Leonid Kantorovich (who was the only Soviet economist
to ever win the Nobel Prize in economics),
used his work on linear programming to
answer the arguments of economists like Ludwig von Mises
and Friedrich Hayek who argued that
19 matches
Mail list logo
