[OPE-L:5852] FW: Re: heterodox theories of value

From: Makoto Itoh (mktitoh@kokugakuin.ac.jp)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 06:14:31 EDT

Dear Jerry;

Thanks for your response. We have not yet got any reply from
Post-Keynesians. As for the final sentence you quote, it is indeed to dense.
In the whole book, we intended to explain following contents.
1) Although Marx well recongnized monetary financial instability, like
post-Keynesians, sometimes relatively independent from real accumulation to
cause what we called monetary crisis type 2, capitalist financial crises
usually and often deeply rooted in the difficulties of real (industrial)
accumulation of capital, typically such as overaccumulation of capital in
relation to labouring population. 
2) It must be analyzed also in relation with the changes in real capital
accumulation why financial instability so much underlined by Minsky and
other Post-Kenesians was not much important in a certain historical period
like the 'golden age' in 1950-60s, and why it became so important after
1970s. Overaccumulation played a decisive role in this historical change.
Capital-labour relations in the phase of depression are also important in
understanding difficulties of isufficient consumer demand for real capital
accumulation. Thus, Post-Keynesians seems overgeneralize the financial
instability in these two contexts.

It is my honour and encouragement for my tennis exercise to be called an
erwhile tennis partner by genius Steve!  


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald_A_Levy [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:14 PM
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:5803] Re: heterodox theories of value

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

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