I'll gladly check out Makoto's book (and I'm delighted that an OPE
discussion has finally inspired my erstwhile tennis partner to post a
message! -:> ).
Though I'm a great fan of Minsky's, I would have to support Makoto's final
sentence queried by Jerry below. You will read Minsky in vain to find any
real analysis of production, or worker-capitalist class relations (though
you find a lot on manufacturer-financial class conflict).
That may have more to do with the times when Minsky was active rather than
his underlying analysis (he developed the FIH during the heyday of
McCarthyism), but Richard Goodwin has also observed that Minsky (with whom
he taught at one stage) didn't have much analysis of production.
But there's one more little cameo I can add. Hyman's son told me that the
first book his dad gave him to read, once he had expressed an interest in
economics, was Das Kapital.
Cheers,
Steve
At 11:14 PM 6/6/01 Wednesday, you wrote:
>Re Makoto's [5798]:
>
> > Our book, M.Itoh and C.Lapavitsas, Political
> > Economy of Money and Finance
> > (Macmillan and St.Martin's, 1999), contains
> > Marxist systematic analysis of
> > money and finance including a critique of post-
> > Keynesian treatment of the
> > issue, and must be of sime interest to you and
> > other OPE-L friends.
>
>Thanks for the reminder. Have any Post-
>Keynesians replied to Ch 10 ("Post-Keynesian
>Monetary Policy")? E.g. have Moore and Wray
>(whose perspectives are explicitly critiqued in
>that chapter) offered responses?
>
>Steve K might be interested in noting that the book
>suggests that "Marxist theory can benefit from
>Minsky's insight into uncertainty, expectations
>and speculation" (p. 153). The preceding two
>sentences are: "It [Minsky's theory of financial
>instability, JL] has much in common with the
>Marxist theory of crisis, particularly because it
>attempts to identify inherent weaknesses of the
>capitalist economy. However Minsky ignores
>the contradictory and crisis-prone character of
>real capitalist accumulation, itself ultimately
>deriving from the class relations of capital
>and labour". I'm not sure about the last
>sentence, though. Doesn't [Post-Keynesian]
>chaos theory stress the inherent instability (crisis-
>prone character) of the capitalist accumulation
>process? I take it that the authors point is that this
>instability is not systematically related in Goodwin's
>theory to class relations under capitalism [?].
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
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 - 10:56:29 EDT