[OPE-L:8094] Re: Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics

From: Tony Tinker (tonytinker@msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 16:43:25 EST

Would some help me with the correct quote and  source from Marx, that refers to '.... first time in tragedy, ... next time in farce'.  

Also, does anyone know of a good source of quotations and aphorism from Marx's writings (preferably a searchable electronic source). 

Thanks in anticipation. TT

Tony Tinker
Professor and Co-Editor
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
The Accounting Forum
Baruch College at the City University of New York
Box B12-236
17 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
Tel: 646-312-3175
Fax: 646-312-3161
Critical Perspectives Conference: 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gerald_a_levy 
  To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu 
  Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:40 AM
  Subject: [OPE-L:8086] Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics

  "Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics: 
               twins or distant cousins?"  

  Paper from May 2001 by Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia  
  presented at the Progressive Economic Forum meeting of the 
  Canadian Economics Association (in pdf format):


  "Abstract:  There has been a substantial amount of convergence 
  between post-Keynesian and Marxist economics, the writings of 
  Kalecki being common ground for both traditions. Still, some 
  differences remain.  While authors in both traditions seem to agree 
  to a large extent on short-period issues, *long-period issues 
  related the role of savings, the rate of profit, inflation, 
  crowding out,  excess money supply, are still contentious. 
  All this seems to depend on the investment  function and 
  the role of capacity utilization. Post-Keynesians claim that 
  the rate of accumulation is tied to the rate of capacity
  utilization, whereas Marxists link the latter to the change 
  in the rate of accumulation* ." (emphasis added, JL)

  * Does the "abstract"  accurately express the main differences 
  in perspective between these two traditions?  

  * Can these perspectives be reconciled without doing an
  injustice to either one?  If so, how?

  In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST