From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 21:16:49 EST
Paul Z wrote in [8092]: > Steedman wrote a chapter in 1982 on "Marx on Ricardo" in *Classical and > Marxian Political Economy* in which he claimed that Marx was wrong to > assert that Ricardo, like Smith, left out constant capital in the value of > national product. I have not seen any rejoinder to Steedman (Fred Moseley > has an article in 1998 on Smith's error but doesn't even cite Steedman). > Has anyone seen a rejoinder to this point of Steedman's? Since Marx > repeatedly says that Smith and Ricardo were wrong, it would seem pretty > significant if Marx himself were in error. Keith Gibbard's paper "Marx on Ricardo on Time" deals, in part, with this issue. See http://www.gre.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt/files/01-gibbard.rtf I believe that an examination of Marx's writings on political economists from the standpoint of inquiring into whether Marx understood different authors (including Ricardo) correctly might make an interesting dissertation topic from a history of thought perspective. However, even if it was shown that Marx misunderstood the perspectives of a particular author or even of several authors, it is unclear to me whether that would be a 'pretty significant' result or just a footnote in the history of economic thought. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST