Re Steve K's [5676]: > No, I won't move VFT from chapter 13 to > chapter 14. I see most of these > elements of VFT as sidesteps of the essential > problems in LTV marxism, just > as I see the Sonnenshein-Mantel-Debreu > conditions as sidesteps of the > essential problems in the neoclassical theory of > consumption. Interesting. Yet, as the 'De-Bunker Supreme', don't you recognize that one of the first principles of de-bunking is that one must be thoroughly familiar with the content of what one claims to be de-bunking? Furthermore, isn't your judgment that there was a (illegitimate?) 'sidestep' an unfounded assertion and presumption? Do legitimate 'de-bunkers' render a verdict of 'guilty' based on 'guilt by association' (i.e. VFT is Marxian and adopts a theory of value based on, but not identical to, Marx's theory and therefore, according to Steve, it *must be* bunk?)? Is this similar to your view that the TSSI _can't_ be truly dynamic even though you have admitted that you have not demonstrated that claim? Isn't the idea that one first comes to a judgment and _then_ one reads the relevant material and actually attempts to demonstrate what one has claimed ... illegitimate bunk? And, while I'm talking about bunk, let's talk about J.M. Keynes. Wasn't his claim about why he didn't incorporate long-run analysis into his theory just bunk? Isn't it illegitimate for a macroeconomic theory to limit itself to short-run analysis? Wasn't Keynes a marginalist? I.e. didn't he accept the marginal utility theory of value? Isn't that bunk? And isn't it bunk supreme to think that marginalist theory, in the form of Keynesian theory, can be successfully wedded to (modern day) Ricardian theory, in the form of Sraffian theory? If one embraces one, doesn't one have to reject the other ... unless one is a bunkster? His politics, especially his role in the General Strike of 1926, could be deemed to be bunk as well. So why not reject Keynes as a bunkster and abandon the title of 'Post-Keynesian' in favor of the title 'Post-Kaleckian'? After all, whatever can be said against Kalecki's perspectives, at least he didn't adhere to the above-mentioned bunk of Keynes. Shouldn't you then add those Marxian perspectives influenced by Kalecki (who considered himself to be a Marxian, right?) to the last chapter of your book? Here I have in mind several different perspectives beginning with Steindl and Baran-Sweezy and going to Foster (e.g. see _The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism_, MR, 1986) [an analysis in the tradition of Baran-Sweezy], Cowling (e.g. see _Monopoly Capitalism_, John Wiley and Sons, 1982) [an update to Kaleckian theory?], and Levine (e.g. see _Economic Theory_, 2 volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978) [a unique perspective, but influenced in part by Kalecki, Steindl, and Baran/Sweezy]? Or (a question for others): is Kaleckian theory, in any sense of the term, bunk? What about the others mentioned in the previous paragraph? Would Occam's Razor suggest that perspectives advanced by Baran/Sweezy and Foster have an advantage over Marxian perspectives which are based on Marx's theory of value? After all, it is a simpler theory, right? Or are these theories _too_ simple? Is so, how? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT