Re: naive question on Sraffian model

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 12:23:33 EST

In fact, I agree with very much of what is written here - except for
some adjective whichj add nothing to content: insidious, for example.
But the substance is right. What just must be added is that the
development of GET has amounted to a more radical destruction of
marginalism than the one by Sraffians.


At 9:05 -0800 24-11-2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>At 7:51 PM +0100 11/23/04, Anders Ekeland wrote:
>>Notions crying of for some harsh deconstruction. Joan Robinson made a major
>>contribution to that - especially on "capital".
>I don't know if pointing to circular reasoning in parables compares
>to Derrida's deconstruction of the great philosophical texts. At any
>rate,  general equilibrium theory simply did away with the idea of a
>single price of capital, and scoffed at reswitching as of no
>empirical concern. So this famous deconstruction doesn't seem to
>amount to much, and certaintly does not compensate for her insidious
>attempt to vanquish the spectre of Marx by making him appear as a
>proto Keynesian. Didn't Schumpeter complain that this is what Sweezy
>was trying to do as well?


Riccardo Bellofiore
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
"Hyman P. Minsky"
UniversitÓ di Bergamo
Via dei Caniana 2
I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
direct    +39-035-2052545
secretary +39-035 2052501
fax:      +39 035 2052549

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 00:00:01 EST