Shane Mage
When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all
things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even
downright silly.
When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that
all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N.
- Original Message -
From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:23822] Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Shane Mage
When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras
that all
things are made of numbers
Title: Re: [PEN-L:23827] Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs.
Roemer
When we read on a printed
page the doctrine of Pythagoras
that all
things are made of numbers, it seems mystical,
mystifying,
even
downright silly.
When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of
Pythagoras
that
all things
- Original Message -
From: Shane Mage
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But can nature be described without mathematics?
And are any natural entities needed to describe arithmoi?
If the answer to both questions is negative, which then is
primordial?
Shane
=
Let me consult the
Shane writes in response to Justin:
A monopolist is able to get an above-average rate of return on its capital.
Nonmonopolists (except, perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore
receive a below-average return on their capital.
This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that
Shane [Mage] writes in response to Justin:A monopolist is able to get an
above-average rate of return on its capital. Nonmonopolists (except,
perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore receive a below-average return
on their capital.
Gil writes: This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for
Jim, thank you for your mostly excellent comments. I agree that the gross
deviation of crisis and values is important to Marx. In fact, I have argued
that that phenomenon represents an important element of his crisis theory.
Also, I should have been more careful in referring to the rejection
I agree with your comments.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Marx however was concerned with exactly why the value of a commodity
(thing) could only be expressed by way of another thing and
eventually money price.
I don't see that Marx paid much attention nor was he very concerned
with the
At 03:04 PM 3/11/02 -0800, you wrote:
Shane [Mage] writes in response to Justin:A monopolist is able to get an
above-average rate of return on its capital. Nonmonopolists (except,
perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore receive a below-average return
on their capital.
Gil writes: This does
Shane writes in response to Justin:
A monopolist is able to get an above-average rate of return on its capital.
Nonmonopolists (except, perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore
receive a below-average return on their capital.
This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that
I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to be an
academic economist trying to work via theorems.
Obviously he wasn't an academic. Maybe you are responding with the
prickliness of an unorthodox economist to thwe word in ana instititional
context where the expexctation is that
The existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was important
to Marx, but the explanation of profits was not a central concern. You cannot
prove that agriculture [Physiocrats], ownership of capital [Smith] or surplus
capital is the source of profits.
Justin Schwartz wrote:
After all, for value to be surplus, you need a notion of what it is
that is surplus.
Justin, the surplus concept has to be thought through. It would be
very helpful if we could do this on the list.
I think one of the ironies of economic thought here is that while
Marx criticized Ricardo
The existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was
important
to Marx, but the explanation of profits was not a central concern. You
cannot
prove that agriculture [Physiocrats], ownership of capital [Smith] or
surplus
capital is the source of profits.
This strikes me as
No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for
capitalism. To refute
it, you have to show TIAA.
Well, I can show you TIAA. In fact, I can show you CREF.
(They are parts of my retirement package.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Please do not let flame wars from other lists spill into this thread.
By the way, I suspect that the thread will not prove to be very
productive. You cannot prove Marx, the Labor Theory of Value, or
Neoclassical economics to be wrong. You can show an inconsistency, but
mostly the
Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is than
I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong.
Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social relationship
unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor
Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is
than
I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong.
Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social
relationship
unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:23729] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to
be an
academic economist trying to work via
I developed a similar argument to Jim's, not using the taxation analogy,
though, in In defense of exploitation, Econ Phil 1995. Frank Thompson also
hasa piece alomh these lines in Science and Society.
jks
Justin writes:Roemer's point is logical, that on his notion of
exploitation, you can
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*
21 matches
Mail list logo
