[ show plain text ]
I'd be *very* interested in further details of your GM person's quote
I'm also with you in your belief that heterodox economists can learn from
accountants -- so long as they are Marxist ones: the orthodox accounting
theorists seem to have swallowed neo-classical subjectivism hook, line and
This is odd, since there's reason to think that Marx's political economy
explains the rationality (for capital) of precisely the traditional methods
of *practical* accounting which orthodoxy derides (see, e.g., Bryer (1994)
"Why Marx's labour value theory is superior to the marginalist theory of
value: the case from modern financial accounting", Critical Perspectives on
Accounting Vol. 5, pp 313-340 -- Chris Arthur will disagree here, I think --
and Bryer (1995) "A political economy of SSAP22: accounting for goodwill",
British Accounting Review, Vol. 27, pp 283-310).
I'd like to hear more about your
perception [...] that most heterodox studies are not interested in
profit rate or even in profit share. Remember Joan Robinson's
disappointment because she could not find any profit theory in
Did you mean to imply -- by referring to Joan Robinson -- that heterodox
economists (or perhaps just non- or quasi-Marxist ones) are only interested
in profitability in an empirical, but under-theorised, way?
I'm currently making a systematic review of recent *empirical* heterodox
studies of profitability and especially of the profit rate, and there
certainly seem to be enough of them to be going on with...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:46 EDT