From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2006 - 15:09:50 EDT
>I have seen no evidence -- whatsoever -- that Stavros or _Science & Society_ >illegitimately "appropriated" your perspectives on Grossmann. While it is >not my place to speak for Stavros and David L, I believe they have not >responded on the list because they do not believe it is worth a response. This is silly. Andrew Trigg certainly thought my points were worth responding to. It is one of the few times that he has participated on this list, and he said explicitly that it was productive to engage my perspective--I have thought a lot about Grossman after all. So yes I am worth a response. A simple response to the reasons I gave would be appropriate. Again here they are: 1. I argued that Kalecki and Crotty were confused about whether profits determined investment or investment determined profit. I argued that Crotty was wrong to rule out the possibility that declining profitability could depress investment, and I said that Trigg is best understood as in agreement with Crotty. Trigg did not discuss Crotty, but Crotty's work is invoked to make just this point in the Science and Society exchange. 2. I argued against Trigg for suggesting that capitalists could spend their way out of crisis. I suggested that his banners would have to say Capitalists of the World Unite and Luxuriate! 3. I argued that Grossmann's emphasis on production was apposite for the analysis of protracted, deep and general crises. I granted that Andrew T's demand side analysis may well be illuminating for less serious forms of crisis. 4. I argued that Andrew T allowed for unrealistic and unbounded rises in the rate of surplus value as effected by autonomous increases in luxury spending. One can judge for oneself whether these points have simply been repeated in the following. Also I noted This thread in question had Andrew Trigg's name in it, Andrew Trigg participated in it, and there were relevant posts for two weeks. So there can be no doubt that Andrew remembered the exchange! >Moreover, it should be noted that not a single person on the list has >come forward and supported your claim Nor has anyone denied that there is an obvious overlap of points. > or even asked SM and/or DL to reply >to your charges. In other words, no one believes you. You have no grounds to infer that. Your lapses in logic are outrageous. Are you well? > >Please immediately cease and desist making claims of improprieties >without proof. Please do not ask me to desist until a persuasive refutation has been offered. > If you want to see the matter discussed further, >then you can take it up with the editors of _Science & Society_, >not on OPE-L. No, it's your job to make sure OPE-L is not quoted inappropriately. For example, you threatened Proyect when he began circulating my posts. I have contacted Laibman. > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > >> ps since you want to be moderator for life, I think you should attend >> to my concerns about the Science and Society exchange. > >> If scholars can get >> away with appropriating ideas expressed on OPE-L without >> acknowledgement, then fellow members of OPE-L will be less likely to >> engage in debate here. This appropriation is an active threat to >> this list, and Stavros and David Laibman have not responded to my >> complaints. >> So please do your self appointed job.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT