Thanks for your post. I have been referring to my interpretation for
several years at least as the "macro-monetary" interpretation of Marx's
theory. That is the name I prefer. "Macro" because aggregate magnitudes
are determined (logically) prior to individual magnitudes, and "monetary"
because the initial givens of Marx's theory (constant capital and variable
capital) are quantities of money-capital, not physical quantities of
inputs and outputs.
I can't speak for the other authors that you have classified with me.
That is your classification, not mine.
Thanks for your understanding.
Fred
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Andrew Kliman wrote:
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:03:06 -0500
> From: Andrew Kliman <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
> Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:498] Re: Re: Kliman on Moseley
>
> A reply to OPE-L 485, 487, 496.
>
> Dear Allin, David, Fred --
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I, and I'm sure every other temporalist
> as well, will be very happy to refer to your school of thought by
> the name *you* prefer. We haven't done so yet only because you
> haven't yet given it a name. So we've had no other choice but to
> coin our own. I'll be more than happy, however, to substitute any
> name of your own choosing.
>
> So please tell us -- what name *would* you prefer for the school of
> thought you all represent? That is, what term *would* you choose
> for (a) the commonality you share with each other and with the
> mainstream Walrasian tradition, Bortkiewicz, the New Interpretation,
> Bruce Roberts, Anwar Shaikh, the surplus approach, etc. but that (b)
> TSS research does not share?
>
> There are, of course, some differences within your school of thought
> (as there are in ours), but the commonality is there, too. What
> would you prefer we call this commonality, if not simultaneism?
> Just let me know. I'll be delighted to adopt your usage.
>
> Ciao
>
> Andrew
>
>
>