Jim Devine
-Original Message-
From: Ken Hanly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/9/02 6:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22680] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism
My "fuzzy" understanding of this is that the hard core of "tautologies"
nevertheless supports if the theo
sic conceptions, Marxism can play a similar role in peoples lives.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22358] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Ma
>RB writes: >>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.<<
>
>DH writes:> See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted
>Callari's observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think
>you could ever prove
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the
>>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or
>>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in
>>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the
>>rea
Rakesh, let Doug speak for himself.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
> subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis. Doug's an eclectic.
> Doug's hostility to value theory derives in part from his rejection
> of the significance of the
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>except that it illuminates what is plain for all to see--the
>importance not greater purchasing power as a 'solution' and/or
>solution but of the destruction and the devaluation of capital in
>the restoration of profitability, accumulation and therefore the
>realizatio
Carrol Cox wrote:
>It's been a few years since I read your book, but I sort of remember it
>as specifically claiming that Wall Street did NOT allocate investment.
WS doesn't have a large role in funding investment, but firms make
investments based on what the stock market will like.
Doug
I have never thought that the productive/unproductive labor opposition
was important -- but I wonder:
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Devine, James wrote:
>
> >But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
> >involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
>
> But Wall Street is also about arranging th
> > Charles Brown wrote:
>> >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
>
>Doug writes:
>> If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
>> with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
>> redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscu
Doug writes:
>
>>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.
>
>See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Callari's
>observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think you
>could ever prove this
Devine, James wrote:
>But your book is suggesting that all of Wall Street is
>involved in unproductive labor, Doug.
But Wall Street is also about arranging the ownership of productive
assets and allocating investment.
Doug
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22576] RE: Re: Historical Materialism
> > Charles Brown wrote:
> > >Isn't value theory a premise of
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >Isn't value theory a premise of Doug's book ?
Doug writes:
> If you mean that workers produce everything of value (in conjunction
> with some goods supplied by nature), and that much division and
> redivision of the spoils goes on, and that finance can obscure those
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>Doug thinks Marx was an underconsumptionist; at the same Doug
>subscribes to the wage led profit squeeze thesis.
See, this is exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Callari's
observation that VT is a substitute for politics. I don't think you
could ever prove thi
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
>to suggest it was the whole shebang.
I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks
===
And Q-D incorporates the EET prec
>
>The empirical equivalence thesis is part of Q-D, no? Wasn't meaning
>to suggest it was the whole shebang.
I don't think so. It's verificationist. Q-D is not. jks
>
>As we've all been remiss in pointing out until now, the most
>powerful critique of Capital -- in the last decade at the very
The measurement of the capital stock is in impossibility. Franklin Fisher
once worked up the requirements for aggregation. Can't be done!
The inability to calculate real depreciation presents another barrier.
I mentioned this in passing before in questioning how seriously we should
take estima
- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22460] RE: Re: Re: Historical Materialism
>>If the main results of the
>>LTV and or the LoV whe
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22458] Re: Re: Historical Materialism
>Q-D underdetermination asserts that if two theories are equivalent
>in
>
>>> >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian
>>>institutionalist
>>> >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
>
>In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point
>Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of
>underconsumptionism that Sw
>> >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist
>> >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point
Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of
underconsumptionism that Sweezy was dev
>
>
> >I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian
>institutionalist
> >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
>
>Must make for some interesting dinner parties
>
>But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook
>here. That's not a value
>I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist
>with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
Must make for some interesting dinner parties
But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook
here. That's not a value theory, and ne
>But this is a perfect example of a fallacy of marginalism. I think the
>strongest anti-LTV/LOV case that you could make in this direction would be
>that LTV/LOV don't "add anything to what can be explained by" neoclassical
>marginal/general equilibrium theory.
I don't accept GET. I'm basically
>>If the main results of the
>>LTV and or the LoV whether in a quantitative-qualitative
>>combination or relying singly on quantitative or qualitative
>>approaches adds nothing to what can be achieved in terms of
>>*explanation* without them, then why shouldn't Ockam's razor
>>apply--to concepts
>Q-D underdetermination asserts that if two theories are equivalent
>in their empirical entailments then some other criteria needs to be
>used to compare explanatory virtues etc.
No, that's Q's empirical equivalence thesis. The Q-D thesis just holds that
theories are interconnected networks of p
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism
I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequenc
ction and allocation of goods
> under capitalism is to reduce Marx to the status of a "minor Ricardian".
>
> cheers
>
> dd
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Justin, you keep reminding us of Oskar Lange's economics of socialism
>quote. He thought that General Equilibrium was a proof of the efficacy of
>market socialism. I don't want to debate market socialism -- we have
>worked that one over more than enough -- but his "proof" seems kind of
>silly
JKS writes:>Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value
theory either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that
theory as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was
right, we don't need a value theory at all.<
1. The fact that they don
capitalism is to reduce Marx to the status of a "minor Ricardian".
cheers
dd
-Original Message-
From: Justin Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 February 2002 15:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:22310] Re: RE: Re: Historical Materialism
Well, you know bette
Justin, you keep reminding us of Oskar Lange's economics of socialism
quote. He thought that General Equilibrium was a proof of the efficacy of
market socialism. I don't want to debate market socialism -- we have
worked that one over more than enough -- but his "proof" seems kind of
silly to me.
Well, you know better than I. But they don't teach marxian value theory
either, and the USSR's early attempt to use what it thought was that theory
as a planning tool was a disaster. So, anyway, maybe if Daniel was right, we
don't need a value theory at all. jks
>
> >Oskar Lange used say that
>Oskar Lange used say that Marxian economics is the economics of capitalism
>and neoclassical economics is the economics of socialism. If you want to do
>monetary and fiscal policy, design an antitrust regime, figure out the
>impact of opening new oilfields on existing transportation options, m
>
>I don't think that your example is quite correct although I understand your
>point. A hand-assembled Toyota would most likely be regarded as "superior",
>command a higher price and represent a greater value than the Toyota that
>was mass produced using a great deal of automation.
My example
>Jim writes:
>
>>
>>
>>(2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>>the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>>OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward
>>equality between sectors, prices gravitate
on 2/2/02 07:55 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim writes:
>
>
>>
>>
>> (2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>> the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>> OCC differs between industries; and (3) the
it
were why should it be given any particular weight? Is it any less
dubious
than the Marxian theory of value?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject:
Jim writes:
>
>
>(2) no, Marx shows convincingly in volume III of CAPITAL that as long as (1)
>the rate of surplus-value is constant and uncorrelated with the OCC; (2) the
>OCC differs between industries; and (3) the rate of profit tends toward
>equality between sectors, prices gravitate toward
February 01, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22211] Re: Re: Historical Materialism
>
>But SNALT implies that an hour of A's labor may not at all produce the same
>exchange value as an hour of B's labor. If the SN labor time to produce X
>widgets is one hour and A's la
ess dubious
than the Marxian theory of value?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22192] Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
>
&g
>
>But SNALT implies that an hour of A's labor may not at all produce the same
>exchange value as an hour of B's labor. If the SN labor time to produce X
>widgets is one hour and A's labor does that but B's labor only produces
>half that number then in this context an hour of A's labor and of
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22191] RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
Ian quotes Joan Robinson:
> "The awkwardness of reckoning in term
Ian quotes Joan Robinson:
> "The awkwardness of reckoning in terms of values, while commodities
> and labor power are constantly changing in values, accounts for
> much of the obscurity of Marx's exposition, and none of the
> important ideas he expresses in terms of the conceptof value cannot
> b
- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(1) > Maybe we are not talking the same language. I do not mean by
saying
that Marx holds that prices are prop, to value that commodities
trade at
value, just that there is a function that takes you from value to
prices,
and
dd writes: >>Out of interest, what's wrong with the labour theory of value
[LTV]? Do the AMs [analytical Marxists] have an alternative theory of
value, or do you try to get along without one? Feel free to not answer if it
would take more labour than is worth bothering with.<<
A central question
The following is (1) Justin's reply to what I said in the message I just
forwarded to pen-l, plus (2) my reply to him. -- Jim Devine
I originally said: >>Marx didn't say that price is proportional to value. As
is pretty clear if you read all three volumes of the damn book,<<
(1) Justin responde
47 matches
Mail list logo
