Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 06:47:27 EDT
> But DeBrunhoff, Aglietta, Harvey, Sweezy, Pollin > and others analysed these developments in updating Marxian finance > theory. There's nothing wrong with that underlying theory... is > there? Hi Patrick: *Which* underlying theory? The underlying theory of Bob Pollin, the late Paul Sweezy, Michel Aglietta, and Suzanne deBrunhoff isn't the same, is it? I think there have been attempts at explaining these developments (e.g. by Robbie Guttermann and Bryan & Rafferty) which need to be examined and critically accessed. The point I was trying to make is that the "plain old story" in Volume 3 doesn't consider the changes in financial instruments and conditions which have occurred since the time Marx wrote the drafts for what were later published as Volume 3. That's not a controversial point, is it? In solidarity, Jerry [JL previously wrote:] > In significant ways, it's not the plain old story told in Volume 3, etc. > For example, there is at least in some advanced capitalist nations the > rise in working-class savings and the rise in credit card indebtedness > by the working class. The growth of pension funds and mutual funds > owned (but not controlled) by working-class families isn't part of the > Vol. 3 story either.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST