Insomnia patrol...
Nancy writes
I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific
arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the
following have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, but from
supply and demand.
This turns out to be
Jim writes in PEN 27420, among other things,
I said: Marx ... assumes a bourgeois system of ethics applies, i.e.,
that every commodity sells at value.
I suspect that the i.e. here is a non sequitur. There's no reason to think
that Marx understands a bourgeois system of ethics to embrace
[Was: Re PEN-L 23950, Re: Marx's proof regarding...]
Michael writes, among other things,
Also, the debate between Charles and Gil does not seem to be going
anywhere.
What? As you know, Michael, I've had plenty of experience with PEN-L debates
that weren't going anywhere (and, being the
I think the difference between Roemer and Marx concerning the role of (systemic
or class) coercion is more apparent than real, more a matter of choice of
language and emphasis rather than deep analytical differences.
According to Roemer's analysis, capitalist exploitation *requires*
FWIW, I agree with Peter's assessment of Japan's situation, and add a comment
from my previous post on the short-lived Lessons from Japan thread, to the
effect that Japan faces international political constraints against significant
further devaluation of the yen, reinforcing the Keynesian
Jim writes,
A key introductory point: I am _not_ defending the specifics of Marx's
analysis per se (e.g., what he says in volume I, ch. 25, of CAPITAL).
Instead, I am defending his general method and theoretical framework,
This is indeed a key point. The comment of mine that prompted this
As I recall, a top climatologist made a similar point a few years back It did
not garner front-page headlines, to say the least Peculiar, isn't it? Gil
Goodbye cruel world
A report by top US scientists on climate change suggests that
catastrophe
could be imminent
Jeremy Rifkin
Friday
This strikes me as a topic PEN-Lrs could really sink their teeth into
What do people think should be done instead of the DC plan to bring Argentina
out of its current crisis, and will the suggested alternative be able to avoid
the harsh dilemma DC anticipate (ie, prolonged misery now or even
Paul writes:
There have been a couple of posts today denigrating the so-called
Coase theorum. Let me say first that I have always believed the
theorum to be a crock and seen a number of references to that
effect in the litterature -- though precious little argument or
model criticism to
Loren writes:
I am involved in a team taught course entitled, "Political and
Economic Systems and Theories". The course is team taught
with a political science professor who is a self declared Libratarian.
I am a left wing near socialists. We get along quite well but
we often have
In the 70s and 80s (and maybe even now), mainstream economics
textbooks presented the Cournot model of oligopoly as a game played
out sequentially in real time. The problem with this interpretation
of the model is that it requires the seemingly unreasonable assumption
that the players are
Doug writes:
I'm still
wondering, though - what is gained by Stiglitz's use of mathematical
reasoning. Does it express something that can't be expressed in words? Does
it deepen the mystery surrounding the priesthood? Does it aim to persuade
an audience that would find mere word
Jim writes:
In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math,
Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of
Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was
inconsistent with those premises before Okishio's proof?"
I think this example
Addendum to my earlier post on this topic, a thought experiment.
1) Think of a non-definitional and radically critical claim about
capitalism you believe to be necessarily true.
2) How would you establish this claim *is* in fact a necessary
consequence of capitalism, rather than (say), an
As an aside on Mike's post, I'd like to comment on two code phrases
in Bob Dole's "Republican response" to Clinton's proposal. They're
interesting because one hears them a lot from right-wingers these
days, and in taken in tandem they contradict each other in substance.
1) "Politics of class
Doug writes
I've just been wrestling with some of Stiglitz Co.'s stuff on info
asymmetries. It seems that it takes arguments that could be made in no more
than a paragraph of Robinson-clear English and puts them into pages of
formulas. Am I missing something? Didn't Ricardo make the
Doug wrote:
While we're on the subject of things Joan Robinson may or may not have
said, did she actually say that since she never learned math she had to
learn to think instead? If so, where?
Doug, I know I've seen it, but I'm still looking. I did run across
this related passage in her
John writes:
Let me be a bit more clear.I think the rush to critique attempts
to use the LTV without placing that critique in a dynamic analysis are, at
best, premature. I would agree that the LTV has yet to be used in a way
that completely clarifies "the law of motion of
I'll try to respond to Jim's full message on the above topic later,
but for the moment I'd like to take issue with his characterization
of my treatment on Marx on PEN-L:
In
Gil's many pen-l missives on a host of subjects, I've never seen him
trying to understand any of Marx's theories first
John Ernst takes me to task for addressing Alan Freeman's arguments
as they are raised:
In his criticism of the KMF equation system, G. Skillman
continues "the argument that the connections Alan draws
between the dynamic KMF equation system and labor values
are either a) not in
Paul C. responds to this part of my post on the KMF system...
---
contradicted by the case of OPEC. 1973 did not see OPEC countries
suddenly gain access to superior technology or suddenly seize control
of the financial and commercial system, or even establish a larger
military. But the
This is to continue my discussion with John Ernst concerning the
problematically necessary connection of the KMF system to Marx's
value theory.
John writes:
1. The notion of the redundant nature of the concept of value is not
new.
True, but as I've applied it to to KMF system, it is.
Folks -- From the following exchange on another list (about
3d-world economies), one could easily get the impression that
you Young Radical Economists have a bit of a PR problem. Anyone
care to help this guy out?
Ted Kuster
(from Javier Stanziola):
Has anyone heard of the position
Thanks to Alan for his cogent and detailed response to my post on the
Kliman/McGlone/Freeman (et al.) understanding of Marx's writing on
value and prices. I too am somewhat dismayed that a literature of
this age (since 1988 at least), size, and degree of internal
coherence has received so
Re Jim's most recent comments on this subject, I go back to the
bottom line: Jim asserts that some form of subsumption (formal,
real, or "macro") is necessary for the extraction of surplus value in
Jim's sense of the term. This is a very strong claim. Nobody,
certainly not Jim, has
Andrew Kliman recently wrote
I, Kliman, am NOT an advocate of what is *generally* called the "new solution"
to the "transformation problem," i.e. the interpretation of Dumenil, Lipietz,
Foley, etc. I have been arguing for several years (in print, since 1988
_Capital Class 35, "The
Response to Jim's recent 4-parter: Now there's a surprise, Jim and I
continue to disagree on the social logic of exploitation. That's OK:
we all know that PEN-L is good at eliciting ideas and positions but
ill- suited for resolving issues or disagreements. So be it.
Just some comments
Jim writes:
By the way, if I understand correctly, often businesses
do pay higher property taxes if government activities
lead to higher property values.
Yeah, but by the same token, property taxes (eventually) go down, if
only by lawsuit or inflation-driven attrition, if property values
Question: is Marx's notion of "real subsumption" too vague to be
useful, or can it stand on its own [with possible emendation]?
Jim O'Connor writes:
Marx's original sense of
"real subsumption" is too vague, and also wrong. If you
include "mode of cooperation" as part of the "labor process,"
Jim O'C writes:
Jim Devine wrongly defines "real real subjection" of labor to capital
("the capitaists control the production process"). The Marxist
definition is that no matter how highly skilled (or not) a worker is,
the skills are useless outside of the context of capitalist
Eric asks:
What other purpose would the equal profit rate assumption
play? Why would Marx claim that either in theory or in
reality that profit rates become equal?
I agree with Jim and Justin that the (tendency toward) equalization
of profit rates was more than just an assumption for Marx;
Ooops, forgot to mention in my immediately previous post that I'm
quoting Patrick Mason. Gil Skillman
But is it not true that according to the neoclassicals, there
is nothing about _capitalism_ as an economic system
that creates profit rate differentials? Rather, it is something
about the "natural" world (e.g., systematic risk differences).
Fair enough, subject to the caveat that in its
Eric writes
Re: Paul C's comment
Or perhaps the whole theory of a tendancy of the rate of profit
to equalise is just a myth.
Only free-market Neoclassicals believe in
such a tendency (I think). Are you thinking of the Marxian
claim of a tendency of the value rate of profit to _fall_?
From Eric's post:
In response to Doug H:
Despite the deregulation of the markets and a furious
pace of transactions . . . Profit rates were as dispersed
as ever at the end of the decade as at the beginning.
Jim D wrote,
Just because capitalism involves a tendency for profit
I have some concerns re Jim's representation of what I have to say
(or to put it in Jim's terms, the "view" I'm "pushing") with respect
to the topic listed in the subject header, but I'm not going to
pursue them here because to do so would 1) take us over ground
already heavily travelled on
Second question:
Is formal subsumption necessary for the exploitation of labor
(understood in the strict sense of expropriating surplus labor) via
relationships of exchange?
I have in mind here not only usury, the circuit of capital Jim
focuses on in his post, but also those circuits
Third and final question:
If exploitation in the cases considered previously did not in fact
require formal subsumption in either Marx's or Jim's sense of the
term, did they instead require the existence of monopoly power in a
sense distinct from Roemer's?
In particular, did exploitation in
Heather writes:
Dear pen-llers,
Could any of you min wage experts please suggest to me the *best* most recent
article on the social and economic effects of a minimum wage?
Thanks in advance!Heather
Best with respect to what concerns? Possible candidates are:
1)Card and Krueger's
What and who is a "worker"?
Mary Schweitzer
Hmm. I'm curious to see where this is going, so I'll take a shot:
Most broadly, a worker is someone who expends labor in a productive
endeavor or enterprise.
For certain purposes at least, Marxists might want to modify this to
read, a worker
In addition to being incredibly offensive, inappropriate, and counter-
productive to the aims of this net, John Cross's tirade against Trond
is also ill- founded. After taking Trond to task for his reference
to Aristotle on the "unnatural" character of usury, Cross trumpets,
WELL, LOOK AT
Jim writes:
I also don't see how usury is the same as class exploitation in
the sense of inducing people to create a surplus-product. In
theory, this might happen, but I haven't seen anyone explaining how
it could work. (There are plenty of reasonable theories of how
usury redistributes a
Jim writes:
A similar case is that of usury, under which
M becomes M' without any commodity being purchased (only
paper promises are traded).
If there is no surplus-product in this case, all interest
earned by the usurer is simply a theft from the borrower
(who is in a bad situation
A couple of comments re Mark Nadler's reception on PEN-L:
1) As someone who has been periodically and intensely flamed for
positions advanced in this forum, and labelled everything from
"mainstream and non-progressive" to an "acolyte of Roemer" by PEN-
pals who, for all I know, still endorse
Ellen writes:
This is a question by a noneconomist for you economists. When we read
the results of "studies" on things like the impact of the minimum wage
what are these studies based on? Are some merely based on theoretical
models without real-world or empirical testing? If this is
Does anybody know of any critical literature on Louis Kelso and his
'binary economics', or the promise of 'universal capitalism'?
A non-economist friend who wants to reform the west wants to know my
opinion on this stuff.
He has lobbed into my mail a huge article from the Rutgers Law
Evan writes:
Meantime, I don't have any foibles in attacking economics per se
and economists generically as antithetical to both social and
material well-being.
WOuld anybody like to disabuse me of this dogmatic position?
Not really. For better or worse, pen-l is better suited as a
A PEN-L web site for the purpose of debunking the vicious lunacy that
counts as political argument in the US today is a great idea. Two
comments: first, I'd augment Louis's topics list to include health
care, education, income distribution more generally, and
environmental issues.
1.
This study may or may not be significant, but quoted in context it's
a lot less stupid then Doug's original post suggests. The
authors aren't simply saying that they've shown poor people don't
save; they're saying one can account for such generally recognized
phenomena using a life-cycle
An article in the latest Business Week says that the city of
Indianapolis, Indiana is also having the public sector workers
compete with the private sector for project bids. City worker unions
were initially opposed to the idea, pushed by the current
(Republican) mayor, but like it in
Three years ago when relatively new to pen-l I pushed a discussion on
another aspect of Marx's argument in CAPITAL well past the point of
diminishing social returns. I won't repeat that disservice now
(begging the possibility, of course, that I've done so already).
That said, the latest
I'm writing in response to informative posts by Alfredo, Bill,
Andrew, and John.
1) It is a bit misleading to suggest, as Alfredo does, that I'm
simply recycling Bohm-Bawerk in arguing that exchange does not
"express something equal" in any sense adequate to sustain
Marx's conclusion. In
I'm writing in response to Paul Cockshott's excellent post re my
comments on Marx and Rubin.
My argument is that exchange values do not in general "express
something equal" except in a sense inadequate to sustain Marx's and
Rubin's conclusions about the status of socially necessary labor
Cathy writes:
Today in the mail I received an advertizement for a new magazine called
"Civilization" The Magazine of The Library of Congress." The ad is in 4
or 5 separted pamphlets. In pamphlet #3, in the inside, the first line
reads "Have you heard about the noted economist who's
An update on minimum wage studies:
The three studies (by Card, Card, and Katz and Krueger) finding no
disemployment effects of raising the minimum wage which I referred to
in my last post are all published in a symposium of the INDUSTRIAL AND
LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW Volume 46 (October 1992).
Anders writes:
Ron Stief of the Center for Ethics and Economic Policy is trying to pull
together a short piece on why raising the minimum wage is a good idea.
Anybody have a good summary of the economic research which supports this
claim?
I just wrote a letter to the _Hartford Courant_
Editor:
An Op-Ed piece by Jesse Malkin in a recent edition of the Courant (Hartford
Courant
1/20/95, p. A13) labelled as opolitical posturingoe recent proposals within the
Clinton
Administration to increase the minimum wage, arguing that such an increase would raise
consumer
Oops, the letter I downloaded came out a little sloppy. With
apologies for the clutter, I've re-edited it and am trying again.
NB:representes quotation marks. Gil
Editor:
An Op-Ed piece by Jesse Malkin in a recent edition of the Courant (Hartford
Courant 1/20/95, p. A13) labelled as political posturing recent proposals
within the Clinton Administration to increase the minimum wage, arguing that
such an increase would raise consumer prices and
I should have built better defenses by now, but articles such as the
one cited by Paul H. from the LA Times news service still manage to
honk me off royally. This is vulgar apologism, to use the old hairy
guy's terms, at its very worst. It's bad enough that the points made
explicitly are
I agree strongly with Loren's suggestion that changes in the
structure of global markets (augmented, e.g., by anti-labor, pro-
business policies of the past 3 administrations) have transformed the
inflation-unemployment tradeoff in the US economy, and in a way the
Fed hasn't yet figured out.
Allin writes:
There is a well known passage in which Thorstein Veblen ridicules the
neoclassical conception of the economic agent. So far as I remember
he uses phrases like "a quivering globule of desire" and "lightning
calculator of pleasures and pains". Can anyone help me out with the
Doug, I'd also be interested in hearing at least a summary of your
critique of the New Party and/or its claims. My main question is
this: is the Cantor piece wrong in its suggestions re political
strategy for the left? If so what alternative would be feasible and
more effective? Gil
Anders writes:
Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
how do smart neoclassicals explain how + when large
Many thanks to Matt Z. for posting the Progressive piece on the New
Party by Daniel Cantor. My main concern with going the third-party
route (as opposed to revitalizing the progressive "wing" of the
Democratic party) was the divide-and-conquer problem the article
spoke to quite effectively.
Help! I just returned to the list after signing off for break. Doug
Henwood informs me that someone recently posted a message re the
paper I presented at ASSA concerning the viability of labor-managed
firms. I'd like to add some commentary to that post if appropriate.
Could someone
Do markets have any legitimate role in a socialist economy? In my
last post on this subject I suggested that they might, but not that
indicated by the standard static efficiency conditions of neoclassical
economics (which are never satisfied in any economy, anyway).
Instead I pointed to the
Robin Hahnel's post raises two issues:
1) What market should be considered the primary target for
elimination in a move toward market socialism?
2) Given elimination of said market, what's the use of allowing the
other "n-1" markets to continue? Wouldn't their efficiency
properties, such
John Rosenthal writes:
There is no such thing as an "ad hominem attack" (contrary to what Jim
Devine writes). There is such a thing as an *attack* and there is such a
thing as an ad hominem *argument*.
Of course there is such a thing as an ad hominem attack, although you
might not
Peter Dorman writes:
One brief thought about the election. The NYT reported, if I recall
correctly, that men split 54-46 for the Republicans, while women split 54-46
for the Democrats. If true, this means that the election was decided entirely
on the basis of differential turnout. What
Doug Orr writes concerning the apparent problem that some messages
aren't received by all of us on PEN-L:
I think we have a way to test this. I have the sense from past exchanges
that Gil Skillman is almost as fanatic about saving msgs as I am. Several
people have made reference to his
A private post has confirmed that I did in fact miss a key part of
Herb's "contributions" to the net, suggesting that Michael's
assessment of the situation was accurate. I apologize and disavow
my suggestion that Herb was "chased off the net." I continue to feel
strongly that argument _ad
Michael Ash writes:
Does anyone know what participation rates were like in the
election that
just passed? I get the sense from the media that rates were high but
haven't seen figures for anywhere outside of CA.
I am interested in:
% of registered voters voting
% of eligible
Doug asks--
It seems that everyone these days accepts the Hayek critique of planning.
Are there any sharp new critiques of the critiques that the comrades
could recommend?
Some possibilities: 1) Roemer's _A Future for Socialism_ (1994),
beginning with Ch. 4, where he provides a brief
Huh?
That's my chief reaction to Robin's latest post on the "p/a
social conscience" question. Here's why: Robin writes
After considering apologizing for being a little "testy" in some of
my postings on coupon socialism and people's comments about coupon
socialism, I've decided not to.
I've been itching to get into the very interesting "P/A social
conscience" discussion initiated by Jim Devine, but I've been hung up
with other duties. Since as a result many posts on the subject have
already flown by, I won't attempt a close response to the various
issues, but here are
On to the second part of Doug's question. He asks:
Relatedly, are there any Marxian theories of the firm?
Several of them, or rather, several takes on the central idea that
firms serve as the primary arena of capitalist class conflict and
exploitation. Strategic aspects underlying Marx's
Welcome, Jim Craven, back to the PEN-L ranks! Your departure last
year (or so?) was widely lamented. I have a question with respect to
your last post, where you state:
From my limited sample of URPE members with
whom I have been in contact and my apologies to those for whom the
PEN'rs will want to be sure to catch George Will's column in the
Sept. 5 issue of NEWSWEEK, in which he endorses without qualification
right-winger David Frum's assertion (in the book _Dead Right_--
catchy!) that the major cause of US social pathologies such as
disintegration of the family
Of potential interest to PEN'rs: cover story for the latest (Aug 15)
Business Week concerns rising income inequality in the US. The main
focus of the article concerns the impact of inequality on labor
productivity (those BW folks, they're such humanitarians). Gil
On the question of complementarity of formal and historical analyses
of capitalism, I mentioned that Marx used both. Michael L. responds:
Marx used both, but if memory serves Marx's formal models were derived
from an analysis of contemprary and historical capitalism. They were
Prompted by a private e-mailing from Bruce McF (thanks, Bruce), I
offer a little context on the recent exchange between Jim and me re
the work of John Roemer and its relevance to Marxian political
economy, for those who might be interested and who haven't been on
PEN-L for the roughly 16
Writing in re Jim's and my agreement that formal and historical
analyses of political economic issues are complementary, Bruce says:
It strikes me that there are two different ideas of complementarity.
Each has the notion of one type of analysis accomplishing something that
the other
Bruce asks:
Pardon my ignorance: which direction is postward?
Ooops! Leave off the "d". Gil
Jim concludes a post on the fact vs. value discussion with the
following comments:
I criticized Roemer's theory for not really explaining
positive profits (since there is no explanation for the persistent
scarcity of means of production that the theory rests on). The
*true* equilibrium in
Bill writes:
what i have been leading up to is this: gil says i insulted him by saying he
was mainstream but still maintains the popperian line that testing is
achievable using objectified data.
For what it's worth, this representation is doubly inaccurate.
Ajit writes:
I found Bruce McFarling's three postings on Sraffa/GE debate not only
interesting but highly enlightning. I hope we will hear more from BM in the
future.
Given that Gil has not responded to my last posting on the GE/Sraffa exchange
(as well as Neri Salvadori's comments), Now
Jim writes:
My "arguments are more egregious"? conspicuously bad?
is that meant to be a reasoned argument, Gil?
We must have different dictionaries. Mine (International Webster New
Encyclopedic) includes "remarkable or distinguished" among the
definitions.
But since we're on the
Elaine--Following is a forwarded message. It must have been sent to
me by mistake. Gil
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 14:08:26 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sally Lerner)
Subject:Re: Economists for a California Single-Payer
Without going into details about how it came up, one of my students
raised a question I could not answer. According to the student, the
original law
creating Social Security specifically stated that the SS numberwould not
be used for "general identification." In the past few decades it
Doug Orr writes:
I start by reminding the class that according to neo-classical micro
theory (NCDS), discrimination is eliminated by competition, so unemployment
cannot come from discrimination. I also remind them that factor markets
ajust quickly, so "full employment" is assured. Since
I'm deliberately sending this post to PEN-L outside the context of
my current exchange with Jim Devine, although the latter provides
me with the most recent evidence for some growing convictions I have
about the inherent limitations (as well as the intrinsic benefits) of
of discussion and
I'm deliberately sending this post to PEN-L outside the context of
my current exchange with Jim Devine, although the latter provides
me with the most recent evidence for some growing convictions I have
about the inherent limitations (as well as the intrinsic benefits) of
of discussion and
Jim Devine initiated this exchange with the claim that my argument
concerning the relative significance of Walrasian-type general
equilibrium models and Marx's labor theory of value contained a
"contradiction." When I negated this claim by referring to a
distinction made explicitly in my
Jim Devine initiated this exchange with the claim that my argument
concerning the relative significance of Walrasian-type general
equilibrium models and Marx's labor theory of value contained a
"contradiction." When I negated this claim by referring to a
distinction made explicitly in my
Jim Devine writes (his comments are marked by ):
I'm a little mystified by a contradiction that seems to appear in
Gil Skillman's contributions to pen-l. On the one hand, he rejected
Marx's law of value (a.k.a. the labor theory of value) because
market participants act in response to
Larry Shute asked me to forward this.--Gil
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:53:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurence Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent:
Sally Lerner writes:
I would appreciate comments on: 1) the idea of a basic guaranteed income
for individuals, linked to distribution of available paid work via a much
shorter work week, incentives for education, community service,
environmental restoration, etc., other ideas, and 2)
Larry Shute asked me to forward this.--Gil
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:53:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Laurence Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Sunk Costs and Nike and Captialism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent:
Barkley Rosser (hi, Barkley) takes exception with the way I pose the
point that labor values are at best superfluous:
I profoundly hesitate to get involved in the Cottrell-
Skillman-et-al controversies over Marx and the labor theory of
values. But, one point: From someone who does not
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
