From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 10:21:03 EST
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: > At 8:48 -0800 18-11-2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >At 9:08 AM -0500 11/18/04, Paul Zarembka wrote: > >>Luxemburg did not pay much attention to the tendency of the rate of profit > >>and that is a strength of hers. > > > >This is an assertion as is my claim that I found Fred Moseley's piece > >in Alfredo Saad Filho's Anti Capitalism more penetrating than yours > >in the same book. > > I like Moseley. And, to nmake an example, I like his pieces in MR on > the crisis in USA in the last few years. Do you know, Rakesh, that > they are the same, and a bit less powerful, than Godley on the Levy's > site? Or Wray. Both Post-keynesians, btw. Riccardo, I don't recall any of the Levy crowd saying anything about the rate of profit, whereas I think it is fundamental to understanding the current world economic situation. And they certainly do not say anything about unproductive labor, the main cause in my view of the decline of the rate of profit in the postwar US economy. > >>The tendency of profits, if any, is an extremely complicated problem. I > >>always found A.D. Magaline (an anonymous collective) Lutte de classes et > >>devalorisation du capital: Contribution a la critique de revisionnisme, > >>Maspero 1975 a great starting point, but no body pays any attention to it. > >>Quel domage! > >> > >>Grossmann is a tired reference. > > > >And so are Mattick, Shoul, Yaffe, Cogoy, Shaikh, Ernst, Moseley? > > Can you tell me more about Ernst? > > Actually Moseley does not seem to me to be a falling rate of profit > guy, read carefully. When I first read this I said, "What?!" But from a later post, I realize that what you mean is that I emphasize the increase of unproductive labor, more than the increase of the composition of capital, which is true (although I think the latter is still important). Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 20 2004 - 00:00:01 EST