[OPE-L:5804] Re: Re: heterodox theories of value

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 09:43:38 EDT

I'll gladly check out Makoto's book (and I'm delighted that an OPE 
discussion has finally inspired my erstwhile tennis partner to post a 
message! -:> ).

Though I'm a great fan of Minsky's, I would have to support Makoto's final 
sentence queried by Jerry below. You will read Minsky in vain to find any 
real analysis of production, or worker-capitalist class relations (though 
you find a lot on manufacturer-financial class conflict).

That may have more to do with the times when Minsky was active rather than 
his underlying analysis (he developed the FIH during the heyday of 
McCarthyism), but Richard Goodwin has also observed that Minsky (with whom 
he taught at one stage) didn't have much analysis of production.

But there's one more little cameo I can add. Hyman's son told me that the 
first book his dad gave him to read, once he had expressed an interest in 
economics, was Das Kapital.

At 11:14 PM 6/6/01 Wednesday, you wrote:
>Re Makoto's [5798]:
> > Our book, M.Itoh and C.Lapavitsas, Political
> > Economy of Money and Finance
> > (Macmillan and St.Martin's, 1999), contains
> > Marxist systematic analysis of
> > money and finance including a critique of post-
> > Keynesian treatment of the
> > issue, and must be of sime interest to you and
> > other OPE-L friends.
>Thanks for the reminder. Have any Post-
>Keynesians replied to Ch 10 ("Post-Keynesian
>Monetary Policy")?  E.g. have Moore and Wray
>(whose perspectives are explicitly critiqued in
>that chapter) offered responses?
>Steve K might be interested in noting that the book
>suggests that "Marxist theory can benefit from
>Minsky's insight into uncertainty, expectations
>and speculation" (p. 153). The preceding two
>sentences are: "It [Minsky's theory of financial
>instability, JL] has much in common with the
>Marxist theory of crisis, particularly because it
>attempts to identify inherent weaknesses of the
>capitalist economy. However Minsky ignores
>the contradictory and crisis-prone character of
>real capitalist accumulation, itself ultimately
>deriving from the class relations of  capital
>and labour".   I'm not sure about the last
>sentence, though. Doesn't [Post-Keynesian]
>chaos theory stress the inherent instability (crisis-
>prone character) of the capitalist accumulation
>process? I take it that the authors point is that this
>instability is not systematically related in Goodwin's
>theory to class relations under capitalism [?].
>In solidarity, Jerry

Home Page: http://www.debunking-economics.com
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT