Greetings Economists,
CB (Charles Brown) writes,
(first),
...Math, grammar and logic are all sets of rules on how to use symbols
then CB writes,
...logic is mathematical and linguistic, but I am curious on the essential
distinction between linguistics and mathematics implied here
To which
[was: RE: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation]
Charles writes:
CB: I want to go dialectical on y'all and say logic is mathematical and
linguistic, but I am curious on the essential distinction between
linguistics and mathematics implied here.
it's possible that math might
Math, grammar and logic are all sets of rules on how to use symbols.
CB
by Devine, James
[was: RE: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation]
Charles writes:
CB: I want to go dialectical on y'all and say logic is mathematical and
linguistic, but I am curious on the essential
[A lesson worthwhile for those engaged in political economy-ecology. From
the Ecological Society of America...]
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Eco-Math
Warren,
Mathematics is very
September 25, 2002
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Paying the Bills in Brazil:
Does the IMF's Math Add Up?
By Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker
Executive Summary (full paper is at www.cepr.net)
The IMF has recently approved a $30 billion loan
to Brazil, with the idea that the government
Max Sawicky wrote,
But suppose it is the ratio of net of tax income?
In Walker's example, the ratio changes from
(9/8)*(rich inc/poor inc) to (91/82) * (rich/poor).
The latter is smaller, which could be taken to
mean "more" progressivity. Or less inequality.
The dictionary definition
Roger Odisio wrote,
The clearest way to see the effect . . .
The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the
Tom Walker wrote:
Roger Odisio wrote,
The clearest way to see the effect . . .
The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the strict sense
not ask if the reduction would be
"progressive as to income" (whatever that means). He asked whether it
would be like a progressive taxation.
I said yes, and I see you agree. Case closed?
See my next message, "Fuck the math, do the history."
Tricky Devil
Tom Walker:
Roger Odisio wrote,
An electricity price reduction is the same thing as a lump sum rebate in
this context; each has the same effect on disposable income.
No. The lump-sum rebate in your example was without regard to levels of
consumption. The poor consumer received the same
Tom Walker:
I sense a lot of associative confusion on the issue of
"progressive" taxation. There are two connotations of progressive that are
being mixed up here. There is also an intimate historical connection
between the uses of the two connotations. One meaning of progressive is
the
Roger Odisio wrote,
mean between $10,000 and $15,000--the last bit of bullshit you used to
avoid addressing which tax system I posited was more progressive.)
Getting testy now, are we?
Max has an income of $100. Roger has an income of $10. I give Max $2
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not
welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l
won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it
for the
Tom, don't go!
Behind the original question I posed about "progressive taxation" was a
motive. In preparation for someday attacking the analysis that is going to
defend the California de-regulation as a form of "progressive taxation." I
wanted to check to see if there was any basis for
Over on LBO they're arguing about who is
more psychotic. I think both sides are
winning. So this debate compares
well. I would be sorry to see either TW
or RO go. Neither of them has called me
an insect yet.
On the substance of the matter . . . TW said:
Max has an income of $100. Roger has
Max, you butterfly, you. I would agree that the outcome in the example you
give seems "less unappealing". That is perhaps because we can imagine what
it is like to have an income of $10,000 and what it would feel like to get
a $1000 boost. We can also imagine how unimportant a $2000 windfall
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not
welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l
won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it
for the
Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The
mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over
the top with Tom. please stop.
Timework Web wrote:
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
called me
Michael Perelman wrote:
Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The
mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over
the top with Tom. please stop.
Could you please explain what you mean by "it seems that Roger is going over the
Roger Odisio wrote,
By my reading, only a couple posts by Tom Walker seem to quarrel with
it. (the definition of progressivity)
I don't quarrel with the definition, only with applying the term to
a situation where it doesn't apply. Be humble. Do the math.
"Increasing in rate as the ta
It may not be immediately clear to everyone why taking a ratio of a ratio
is not an acceptable way of assessing the "progressivity" of a rate
change. So let me give another example:
Sometimes governments announce tax or spending changes relative to a
previously projected change. Thus, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marianne Brun [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wally Goldfrank [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Albert J Bergesen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Pat Lauderdale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: teaching math (or maths to Mig Fiona) (fwd)
Message-ID
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
Therefore, the mystification of mathematics in modern economics can be
compared to cargo cults that spread on some Pacific isalands after World War
II. The Americans established air bases on those islands, and to buy the
aborigines' loyalty, they showered them
Romain Kroes writes: ... because of a paralyzing devoutness, Marxists
never tried, too, to go beyond the conceptual contradiction against which
Marx came up.
what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the
"contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"?
James Devine wrote:
what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the
"contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"?
neoclassical economists are unable to overcome the lesser epistemologic
obstacle.
what obstacle? how do they overcome it?
As for
,
Read the stuff on the working day - hardly a concern with LR dynamics!
Also, my sister was a math major at Queens College in the early 1970's. On
the first day of a Differential Calculus class, the prof turned to my sister
(and the 3 other female students) and said, "what are you doing here?
Jay Hecht wrote:
"In fact, it was quite evident that the hospital practice at this
particular Big 6 succeeded because the women supplanted the incompetent
males!"
This can be explained in a simple Becker (neoclassical) manner: Prior to
the hiring of women, incompletent males were hired.
At 02:56 AM 7/23/97 -0700, you wrote:
It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics
in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to
tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual
basis in economics, so much so that "the back
It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics
in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to
tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual
basis in economics, so much so that "the back of the head" is nothing
but a rough
e center, why couldn't you use math to talk
about variable degrees of power?
Wl, part of it is the assumptions on which the model is based--so,
frinstance, Posner's recent work which "proves" that white men should receive
a larger part of the medical research dollar because the
On Tue, 20 Jun 95 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Cockshott) said:
John asks
All of the above is true but seems to miss the point of the Okishio
Theorem.
That is, Okishio points out that rattional capitalists make investments to
increase their rates of profit or, at least, to
Tavis Barr says:
..if there is no tendency of the profit rate to fall, why
has it been on a downward trend for the last 25 years or so?
First: Are economists in agreement on this? I have economist
acquaintances who say otherwise. Just asking.
Secondly: If this rate really has been falling,
at stays with the higher-MC
technology while the other one switches will get really screwed. I
haven't done the math but it seems pretty intuitive and not hard to
compute just annoying. If a firm believes that it can switch
technologies a "period" before its competitors do any
This was Ricardo's argument for a declining rate of profit. Marx wanted
to develop an argument that was internal to his theory of capitalist
dynamics, i.e., not imposed outside the system. Not that Ricardo was
wrong just that his argument was endogenous. David Levine discusses this
in one of
The discussion of whether the falling rate of profit is true
under different assumptions of wage rates seems to me beside
the point. What one should be looking at is not micro
phenomena like that but macro dynamics. A sufficient condition
for the rate of profit to have a declining upper bound, is
Math Language 2.
The controversy between Newton and Leibniz over the
"invention" of the calculus is interesting in this regard and
sheds some light on the subject. The three greatest mathe-
maticians of all time are generally considered to be Archimedes,
Newton and Gauss.
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 sho
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 th
Gil,
Other than as an exercise in gaining clarification concerning Marx's
terminology and thus in extending his efforts, how is the Okishio Theorem
relevant or "useful." Note that for Okishio not only is the real wage
constant but all prices used in determining whether or not the rate of
39 matches
Mail list logo
