Jim, you write
>
>I haven't read Veneziani's paper, but the possibility of workers' saving
>doesn't undermine Marx's theory. Marx does discuss workers' saving in volume
>III (though I can't find the quotes, since my copy of CAPITAL that's been
>marked up is at work). It's often assumed that the "c
Roemer and Veneziani
by Devine, James
04 March 2002 00:08 UTC < < <
-clip-
The "workers don't save" assumption, by the way, is used by some extreme
right-wingers to suggest that capitalists are rational and workers aren't
so. The assumption should be dropped.
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
>>
> The "workers don't save" assumption, by the way, is used by some extreme
> right-wingers to suggest that capitalists are rational and workers aren't
> so. The assumption should be dropped.
>
This goes back to Plato. He described "Democratic Man" as living only in
Gil writes:> Furthermore, to the extent it [Veneziani's analysis]
compromises Roemer's analysis, it *necessarily* also calls into question
Marx's analysis of "the general law of capital accumulation" in V.I, Ch. 25
of Capital, since Veneziani's results depend on the possibility that *all*
individu
Gil Skillman wrote:
>What! Throw out these classics, when you could sell them on e-Bay for big
>bucks? Perverse.
Just goes to show you that Homo economicus is a mythical being.
Doug
Doug,
What! Throw out these classics, when you could sell them on e-Bay for big
bucks? Perverse.
Gil
>I was just cleaning out the bookshelves, trying to make room for new
>arrivals in a cramped Manhattan apartment, and came across two issues
>of the RRPE, one from the late 70s, the other f
I was just cleaning out the bookshelves, trying to make room for new
arrivals in a cramped Manhattan apartment, and came across two issues
of the RRPE, one from the late 70s, the other from the early 80s. One
promised an article on The Rate of Profit, the other, new approaches
to value theory.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to return to Veneziani now.
I've already addressed most of Gil's points regarding ideological
attack and suppression in my reply to Justin Schwartz.
As for Roemer on reproducibility. On p. 19, middle, he
"specif[ies a] condition [ ] to assure" reproducibility --
[Was: Re: [PEN-L:23400] RE: Re: Some questions]
>Roemer's "Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory"
>should be understood as part of an ideological attack on, and
>effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form.
If "ideological attack on" can be read as a synonym for "critical
