From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 21:54:44 EDT
Quoting Michael Perelman <michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>: > I also did it in 1987 in my Marx book, which I had begun quite a bit earlier. Michael, thanks for the reference. I will take another look. Please tell us more about how and why you used sequential determination. Comradely, Fred > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:23:57PM +0200, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: >> In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in >> Shaikh 1974 or the like, without the excessive >> stress on the non-equilibrium etc.? The TSSI >> claims that there is no convergence to the >> Sraffian solution but I doubt that, it seems to >> me that (as the the Austrian Mises would do: he >> too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they >> simply say that the conditions may change between >> one period and another. >> >> If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should >> work directly on the German, and do a true >> hermeneutical work. Those who have done that >> certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put >> to test, and not a finished business for certain. >> So Kliman has to resort to a peculiar, disputable >> hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical >> Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that >> criterion is put outside discussion. >> >> rb >> >> At 11:03 -0400 30-08-2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >> >Jerry, I think where Kliman (and the TSSI in general) has advanced >> >Marxian theoryis that they have challenged the dominant interpretation >> >that Marx's theory is based on simultaneous determination (of input >> >prices and output prices and the rate of profit), and suggested an >> >alternative "temporal" determination. I don't agree with them in some >> >respects, but I think that >> >this is a crucial issue to raise, and they have been the ones to raise it. >> > >> >=============== >> > >> >Fred: >> > >> >Well, I don't think that raising a "crucial issue" is in itself an advance >> >in Marxian theory. The question is whether you or others accept the >> >specific answers and alternatives that they have offered. Simply stating >> >truisms about the need for non-linear dynamic theory isn't by itself an >> >advance in theory. Kliman and Freeman are good in terms of "talking the >> >talk" about the need for this but "where is the beef"? >> > >> >In any event - as Kliman himself highlights - their analysis is limited >> >essential to hermeneutics, especially hermeneutic issues associated with >> >interpreting Marx's quantitative theory. >> > >> >The huge departure that Kliman makes from Marx can be seen in his slogan: >> >for Marx, "the point" was to understand and change the world; for Kliman >> >"the point" is to "interpret Marx correctly". The first is a scientific >> >stance, the later is an appropriate stance for dogmatists. >> > >> >In solidarity, Jerry >> >> >> -- >> Riccardo Bellofiore >> Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche >> "Hyman P. Minsky" >> UniversitÓ di Bergamo >> Via dei Caniana 2 >> I-24127 Bergamo, Italy >> e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org >> direct +39-035-2052545 >> fax: +39 035 2052549 >> homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT