On Mon, 04 Jun 2001, you wrote: > This horses for courses approach is only one tradition in Post Keynesian > Economics. The likes of Dudley Dillard, Randall Wray and Pasinetti all argue > that Keynes had a labour theory of value, with the assumption that labour is > the only factor of production. In view of other comments on Grossmann and > Mattick, it could equally be charged that 'Marxists have no theory of > monetary production'. Such Grossmanite models treat capitalism like a corn > economy in which this scarce stock of surplus value constraints the system. > It is as if banks had a 100 per cent reserve ratio. It would arguably better > for Marxists to unlearn this strange bastardization of Marx's reproduction > schema and re-learn his monetary insights, which provide the antecedants to > Post Keynesian Economics. Even better to re-read Kalecki. > > Andrew (Trigg) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ajit Sinha [SMTP:ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in] > > Sent: 03 June 2001 22:38 > > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > > Subject: [OPE-L:5768] Re: Re: heterodox theories of value > > > > > > > > Steve Keen wrote: > > > > Not that I'd normally offer to speak for P(aul)D(avidson), but the > > essence of the P(ost)K(eynesian) tradition is that there is no theory of > > value. They promote what they call a 'horses for courses' approach that > > whatever methodology applies for a given question is OK. This position has > > been well critiqued (from a neoclassical perspective) by Roger Backhouse, > > asking that if any methodology is OK, why do they object so strongly to > > neoclassical methods? > > > > _______________________ > > > > Steve, I think 'horses for courses' could also be interpreted as accepting > > the Ricardian, and in my estimation Sraffian, position that there is no > > such thing as a 'general theory'. In that case, it is legitimate to pick > > up a theory of a particular problem and take it apart on the ground of > > theoretical incoherence. But I feel that unless a tradition in economic > > theory has a theory of value, it will be hard for it to erect an > > impressive structure. Furthermore, I think that a theory of value is > > essentially about a static problem. There cannot be a dynamic theory of > > value (if we allow technical change through time) simply because you > > cannot have an invariable measuring rod in this context. So one needs to > > think about the nature of a dynamic theory. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > > > > On utility theory and marginalism, these neoclassical concepts are > > almost universally rejected by PKs, though for a wide range of reasons. > > There is currently a discussion on PKT in which several list members have > > expressed amazement that other members of the list believe that > > neoclassical micro is useful. Their incredulous position would be a > > mainstream PK attitude to neoclassical value theory. > > > > The reality is, as you say, that they are simply avoiding the > > question of a theory of value. However, they have good arguments in favour > > of so doing: "just look at the marxists" is a common refrain (sorry guys, > > but as Jerry pointed out w.r.t. Rakesh resurrecting the TP discussion > > again recently,...), and "just look at the neoclassicals" is another. > > > > My perspective--which I've drafted in a paper which was rightly > > given a 'revise and resubmit' by the referee (but rejected on the basis of > > that one report by the editor of the journal in question)--is that PK > > theory can be built and richly enhanced by adopting Marx's dialectical > > theory of value. But the fear that 'there lies madness' makes my position > > a uniquely unpopular one there. I will endeavour to make the case more > > elaborately in future papers--I have already done so to some limited > > degree in a paper in Riccardo Bellofiore & Piero Ferri's *The legacy of > > Hyman Minsky*. > > > > So yes, I take the PK position on a theory of value as bunk, and I > > have said so in print. > > > > But I also believe that, unencumbered by a flawed theory of value, > > Post Keynesians are more like what Marxism would have evolved into, had it > > not been waylaid by its flawed theory of value and hence by the TP. There > > are other technical flaws too--largely a lack of appreciation of dynamics > > and evolutionary theory. > > > > Cheers, > > Steve > > At 12:24 AM 6/4/01 Monday, you wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Home Page: <http://www.debunking-economics.com/> > > <http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/> > > <http://www.stevekeen.net/> > > Dr. Steve Keen > > Senior Lecturer > > Economics & Finance > > Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, > > School of Economics and Finance > > UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY > > LOCKED BAG 1797 > > PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 > > Australia > > s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 > > Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 > > -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT