Re: [OPE] FWD: Open letters on the BN archive

On 2010-11-13 21:23, GERALD LEVY wrote:
> I must say that Jonathan Nitzan's reply was rather odd. Having re-read
> the original exchange and Paul's attempted intervention, it seems clear to
> me at least that the latter attempted to address a claim by Leo Panitch.
> Yet, Nitzan's reply doesn't even mention Panitch - let alone his reply.
> it makes it sound as if the whole exchange centered around Nitzan and
> Belcher's book. But, if so, why was Panitch's response printed since
> it clearly focused on his (LP's) perspective on value theory. I find this
> - and the rest of JN's response to be strange indeed: you would have thought he
> would have welcomed your intervention and tried to insert his own perspective
> by way of a response rather than just slamming the door and saying, in effect, 'don't
> talk to me until you've read our book and want to talk about it".

I agree. I think Paul ought to forward it to Pantich and Kourkoulakos as
well.

On a related note I listened to a recent recording of Erik Olin Wright
who said to his graduate students that empirical studies have shown
that labour-content does well as any alternative, such as energy. I have
not yet come across such a study and moreover it is empirically false.

//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sun Nov 14 06:34:24 2010