(OPE-L) Re: Say's Law in Marxian Theories?

From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Feb 26 2004 - 09:18:53 EST

Andrew T:  the full reference for Shoul's diss. is --
"The Marxian Theory of Economic Breakdown" (Radcliffe,
1947).  See, especially, Ch. 5: "Marx's Theory of Crises:
The Answer to Say's Law" (125-157).

Her 1957 _QJE_ article is, obviously, easier to obtain and
covers much the same ground (at least as SL is concerned).

Some notes worth pondering:

-- at the time, the _QJE_ article represented -- as far as I
    know -- the only published article in English by a follower
    of Grossmann.

-- at the time, it was unusual for Marxists to have their works
    published in mainstream economics journals. (The
    _QJE_ was published by Harvard University.) It's still
    unusual, but recall the year published (1957) and the
    influence of  McCarthyism in the academy (and
    elsewhere in society).

--  her article was re-circulated, and presumably read by
     many students of economics and professional economists,
     when it was re-issued (and "slightly enlarged") in the
     Spengler (ed.) (1960) textbook of readings on the
     history of economic thought.

--  her article represented the longest explanation in
     English of the relation between Marx and Say.

-- to the current day, the article represents the longest
    and most thorough explanation of what critics might call
    the "Grossmanite" understanding  of Say's Law.

All of the above leads me to ask:  why is it so infrequently referred
to in the literature?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 27 2004 - 00:00:02 EST