[OPE-L:5697] Re: de-bunking the de-bunk

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 08:25:54 EDT

Re Steve K's [5676]:

> No, I won't move VFT from chapter 13 to
> chapter 14. I see most of these
> elements of VFT as sidesteps of the essential
> problems in LTV marxism, just
> as I see the Sonnenshein-Mantel-Debreu
> conditions as sidesteps of the
> essential problems in the neoclassical theory of
> consumption.

Interesting. Yet, as the 'De-Bunker Supreme',
don't you recognize that one of the first principles
of de-bunking is that one must be thoroughly
familiar with the content of what one claims to
be de-bunking?

Furthermore, isn't your judgment that there was
a  (illegitimate?) 'sidestep'  an unfounded assertion
and presumption?  Do legitimate 'de-bunkers' 
 render a verdict of 'guilty' based on 'guilt by
association'  (i.e. VFT is Marxian and adopts a
theory of value based on, but not identical to,
Marx's theory and therefore, according to Steve,
it *must be* bunk?)?

Is this similar to your view that the TSSI _can't_
be truly dynamic even though you have admitted
that you have not demonstrated that claim?  Isn't
the idea that one first comes to a judgment and
_then_ one reads the relevant material and actually
attempts to demonstrate what one has claimed
... illegitimate bunk?

And, while I'm talking about bunk, let's talk
about J.M. Keynes.  Wasn't his claim about
why he didn't incorporate long-run analysis into
his theory just bunk? Isn't it illegitimate for a
macroeconomic theory to limit itself to short-run
analysis?  Wasn't Keynes a marginalist? I.e. didn't
he accept the marginal utility theory of value? Isn't
that bunk?   And isn't it bunk supreme to think
that marginalist theory, in the form of Keynesian
theory, can be successfully wedded to (modern
day) Ricardian theory, in the form of Sraffian
theory? If one embraces one, doesn't one have to
reject the other ... unless one is a bunkster?
His politics, especially his role in the General
Strike of 1926, could be deemed to be bunk as

So why not reject Keynes as a bunkster and
abandon the title of 'Post-Keynesian' in favor of
the title 'Post-Kaleckian'?   After all, whatever can
be said against Kalecki's perspectives, at least
he didn't adhere to the above-mentioned bunk
of Keynes.

Shouldn't  you then add those Marxian
perspectives influenced by Kalecki (who
considered himself to be a Marxian, right?)
to the last chapter of your book?  Here I have
in mind several different perspectives beginning
with Steindl and Baran-Sweezy and going to
Foster (e.g. see _The Theory of Monopoly
Capitalism_, MR, 1986) [an analysis in the
tradition of Baran-Sweezy], Cowling (e.g.
see _Monopoly Capitalism_, John Wiley and
Sons, 1982) [an update to Kaleckian theory?],
and Levine (e.g. see _Economic Theory_, 2
volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978)
[a unique perspective, but influenced in part by
Kalecki, Steindl, and Baran/Sweezy]?

Or (a question for others): is Kaleckian theory,
in any sense of the term, bunk? What about the
others mentioned in the previous paragraph?
Would Occam's Razor suggest that perspectives
advanced by Baran/Sweezy and Foster have an
advantage over Marxian perspectives which are
based on Marx's theory of value?  After all, it is
a simpler theory, right?  Or are these theories
_too_ simple? Is so, how?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT