Alejandro writes [#6375]: >Re Rakesh 6372, citing Gil 6362: > ... <snip> >Gil wrote: >Reading this passage by Gil, it seems to me that he reads >"Capital" as it >were a Microeconomic textbook. What wonders me is that he goes >on to it as >it were a completely natural and uncontroversial procedure... >Perhaps it >would be worth to ask: Is "Capital" a Microeconomic textbook? >Is there any >difference between the method and purpose of Marx's book and, say, >Varian's? Was Marx simply a primitive version of Lancaster? Personally, I don't have any difficulty with the idea that [a subset of] the content of "Capital" is [a critique of] the subject-matter of micro-economics. Aren't the issues (1) whether X's reading of Marx does in fact accord with Marx's critique (2) whether either or both of Marx's and X's critiques say anything illuminating? Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST