>On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >> I think I read Desai saying somewhere that the future of the theory >> of accumulation remains in a synthesis of Hayek and Marx, not in >> Keynes. > >The notion that Hayek has a valuable contribution to make on this (let >alone, more valuable than Keynes's) seems to me fashionable nonsense. >I've studied his cycle theory at some length (paper in CJE a few years >back) and on close examination it's incoherent, as Sraffa said. He >raises some interesting issues, but makes no headway on them. > >Allin Cottrell. I shall entusiastically look for this paper after I have finished Alfredo's book and a recent paper by Alejandro. Allin, did you make any use of John Strachey's The Nature of Capitalist Crisis, which seems to include the first Marxist critique of Hayek's cycle theory? I know that to many Strachey's early effort reads as if it were the kind of reading that "ladies" do under hair drying machines at the beauty salon. But I take care of the way I look. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST