What about Pasinetti - a Post Keynesian that uses the labour theory of value. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald_A_Levy [SMTP:Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com] > Sent: 03 June 2001 07:24 > To: ope-l > Subject: [OPE-L:5760] heterodox theories of value > > Re Steve K's [5759]: > > > > In other words, like the majority of non-orthodox economists, they > have long abandoned any explicit reliance on Marx because they don't want > to be tainted with the brush of the labour theory of value. < > > Yes, there are political implications of what you > call the LTV that they perhaps are not ready for. > So it has been since the 'marginalist (counter-) > revolution' against the political implications of cpe > and the Ricardian socialists. > > Yet, what theory of value do these heterodox > economists adhere to? Of course, surplus > approach economists (like Gary and Ajit) have > a theory of value. But, what about the rest of > them? What, for example, is the 'Post- > Keynesian' (or Post-Kaleckian) theory of value? > E.g. what theory of value does 'PD' advocate on > PKT? Have they -- yet -- thoroughly and > completely abandoned the marginalist dogma > including the marginal utility theory of value? > Or do they just sidestep the whole issue (and > thereby one of the fundamental issues of political- > economic theory) by not explicitly putting > forward a theory of value that they advocate (so > that it can then be subject to critique)? If > that is the case, then perhaps we should view > them as a (a-theoretical) neo-institutionalist > (unprincipled) combination which has a clearer > idea about what they reject than what they accept? If so, isn't > that just plain ... bunk? > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT