No argument from me on this Andrew: well put!
Steve
At 07:58 PM 6/4/01 Monday, you wrote:
>This horses for courses approach is only one tradition in Post Keynesian
>Economics. The likes of Dudley Dillard, Randall Wray and Pasinetti all argue
>that Keynes had a labour theory of value, with the assumption that labour is
>the only factor of production. In view of other comments on Grossmann and
>Mattick, it could equally be charged that 'Marxists have no theory of
>monetary production'. Such Grossmanite models treat capitalism like a corn
>economy in which this scarce stock of surplus value constraints the system.
>It is as if banks had a 100 per cent reserve ratio. It would arguably better
>for Marxists to unlearn this strange bastardization of Marx's reproduction
>schema and re-learn his monetary insights, which provide the antecedants to
>Post Keynesian Economics.
>
>Andrew (Trigg)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ajit Sinha [SMTP:ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in]
> > Sent: 03 June 2001 22:38
> > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> > Subject: [OPE-L:5768] Re: Re: heterodox theories of value
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve Keen wrote:
> >
> > Not that I'd normally offer to speak for P(aul)D(avidson),
> but the
> > essence of the P(ost)K(eynesian) tradition is that there is no theory of
> > value. They promote what they call a 'horses for courses' approach that
> > whatever methodology applies for a given question is OK. This position has
> > been well critiqued (from a neoclassical perspective) by Roger Backhouse,
> > asking that if any methodology is OK, why do they object so strongly to
> > neoclassical methods?
> >
> > _______________________
> >
> > Steve, I think 'horses for courses' could also be interpreted as accepting
> > the Ricardian, and in my estimation Sraffian, position that there is no
> > such thing as a 'general theory'. In that case, it is legitimate to pick
> > up a theory of a particular problem and take it apart on the ground of
> > theoretical incoherence. But I feel that unless a tradition in economic
> > theory has a theory of value, it will be hard for it to erect an
> > impressive structure. Furthermore, I think that a theory of value is
> > essentially about a static problem. There cannot be a dynamic theory of
> > value (if we allow technical change through time) simply because you
> > cannot have an invariable measuring rod in this context. So one needs to
> > think about the nature of a dynamic theory. Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
> >
> >
> > On utility theory and marginalism, these neoclassical
> concepts are
> > almost universally rejected by PKs, though for a wide range of reasons.
> > There is currently a discussion on PKT in which several list members have
> > expressed amazement that other members of the list believe that
> > neoclassical micro is useful. Their incredulous position would be a
> > mainstream PK attitude to neoclassical value theory.
> >
> > The reality is, as you say, that they are simply avoiding the
> > question of a theory of value. However, they have good arguments in favour
> > of so doing: "just look at the marxists" is a common refrain (sorry guys,
> > but as Jerry pointed out w.r.t. Rakesh resurrecting the TP discussion
> > again recently,...), and "just look at the neoclassicals" is another.
> >
> > My perspective--which I've drafted in a paper which was rightly
> > given a 'revise and resubmit' by the referee (but rejected on the basis of
> > that one report by the editor of the journal in question)--is that PK
> > theory can be built and richly enhanced by adopting Marx's dialectical
> > theory of value. But the fear that 'there lies madness' makes my position
> > a uniquely unpopular one there. I will endeavour to make the case more
> > elaborately in future papers--I have already done so to some limited
> > degree in a paper in Riccardo Bellofiore & Piero Ferri's *The legacy of
> > Hyman Minsky*.
> >
> > So yes, I take the PK position on a theory of value as bunk,
> and I
> > have said so in print.
> >
> > But I also believe that, unencumbered by a flawed theory of
> value,
> > Post Keynesians are more like what Marxism would have evolved into, had it
> > not been waylaid by its flawed theory of value and hence by the TP. There
> > are other technical flaws too--largely a lack of appreciation of dynamics
> > and evolutionary theory.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
> > At 12:24 AM 6/4/01 Monday, you wrote:
> >
> > Re Steve K's [5759]:
> > Senior Lecturer
> > Economics & Finance
> > Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
> > School of Economics and Finance
> > UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
> > LOCKED BAG 1797
> > PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
> > Australia
> > s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
> > Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
> >
Home Page: http://www.debunking-economics.com
http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
http://www.stevekeen.net
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
LOCKED BAG 1797
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
Australia
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT