[OPE-L:6668] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Good Lord ?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 23:26:53 EST

>On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>>  I think I read Desai saying somewhere that the future of the theory
>>  of accumulation remains in a synthesis of Hayek and Marx, not in
>>  Keynes.
>The notion that Hayek has a valuable contribution to make on this (let
>alone, more valuable than Keynes's) seems to me fashionable nonsense.
>I've studied his cycle theory at some length (paper in CJE a few years
>back) and on close examination it's incoherent, as Sraffa said.  He
>raises some interesting issues, but makes no headway on them.
>Allin Cottrell.

I shall entusiastically look for this paper after I have finished 
Alfredo's book and a recent paper by Alejandro. Allin, did you make 
any use of John Strachey's The Nature of Capitalist Crisis, which 
seems to include the first Marxist critique of Hayek's cycle theory? 
I know that to many Strachey's early effort reads as if it were the 
kind of reading that "ladies" do under hair drying machines at the 
beauty salon. But I take care of the way I look.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST