From: Tony Tinker (tonytinker@msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 16:43:25 EST
Would some help me with the correct quote and source from Marx, that refers to '.... first time in tragedy, ... next time in farce'.
Also, does anyone know of a good source of quotations and aphorism from Marx's writings (preferably a searchable electronic source).
Thanks in anticipation. TT
Tony Tinker
Professor and Co-Editor
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
The Accounting Forum
Baruch College at the City University of New York
Box B12-236
17 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10010
USA
Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
Tel: 646-312-3175
Fax: 646-312-3161
Critical Perspectives Conference:
http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/
----- Original Message -----
From: gerald_a_levy
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:40 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:8086] Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics
"Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics:
twins or distant cousins?"
Paper from May 2001 by Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia
presented at the Progressive Economic Forum meeting of the
Canadian Economics Association (in pdf format):
http://www.econ.queensu.ca/cea2001/papers/lavoie-seccareccia.pdf
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Abstract: There has been a substantial amount of convergence
between post-Keynesian and Marxist economics, the writings of
Kalecki being common ground for both traditions. Still, some
differences remain. While authors in both traditions seem to agree
to a large extent on short-period issues, *long-period issues
related the role of savings, the rate of profit, inflation,
crowding out, excess money supply, are still contentious.
All this seems to depend on the investment function and
the role of capacity utilization. Post-Keynesians claim that
the rate of accumulation is tied to the rate of capacity
utilization, whereas Marxists link the latter to the change
in the rate of accumulation* ." (emphasis added, JL)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Does the "abstract" accurately express the main differences
in perspective between these two traditions?
* Can these perspectives be reconciled without doing an
injustice to either one? If so, how?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST