[ show plain text ]
Thanks Riccardo. I'll chase it up!
Cheers,
Steve
At 09:16 AM 2/28/00 +0100, you wrote:
>At 21:48 +0100 27-02-2000, Steve Keen wrote:
>>Hi Riccardo,
>>
>>I agree that it was not truly 'populist', but I would argue that it was
>>more populist than the Contribution in that Marx did not try to use a
>>purely dialectical mode of presentation.
>>
>>Though you refer to "first chapter" and "second edition" Riccardo--did you
>>mean "first edition"? If so then I'd like to hear more, since I haven't
>>done any variorum research on Marx.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Steve
>
>That's my point. I would guess that the first chapter, FIRST edition (1867)
>is the more dialectical presentation by Marx. It was so dialcetical that
>Marx decided to append a short appendix on the Form of Value. Both are
>translated in English. The appendixi in Capital & Class, the first chapter,
>first edition in an (unreliable) translation in English by some group in
>New York. I don't have here (in Bergamo, I'm not at home) the references,
>but I'm sure that some other on the list (Chris?) may give you the details.
>
>riccardo
>
>
>>At 09:21 AM 2/27/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>>Capital, first edition, was not truly 'populist', certainly not more
>>>'populist' than the Contribution. Look at the first chapter, which was very
>>>different from the second edition, and much more 'dialectic'.
>>>
>>>r.b.
>>>
>>>At 23:42 +0100 26-02-2000, Steve Keen wrote:
>>>>Thanks Nicky,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it's a fair comment that Marx's exposition of the commodity is
Capital
>>>>is less clear, and less obvu\iously central to his analysis, than in other
>>>>works not written for publication.
>>>>
>>>>The possible cause of this is that Marx was disappointed by the reception
>>>>accorded to "Contribution"--which he refers to as the "Preface to Capital"
>>>>in "Wagner". He thought it would shake the foundations, but it was
regarded
>>>>as obscure by friend and foe alike.
>>>>
>>>>So he tried to improve the reception of Capital by making it more
>>>>"populist"--and in that, he undoubtedly succeeded. We wouldn't have OPE if
>>>>he hadn't. But he obscured his fundamental dialectical logic in the
>>>>process, and it's much clearer in Wagner, the Grundrisse, etc., than in
>>>>Capital I.
>>>>
>>>>One of the best such statements is almost the final word in the
Grundrisse,
>>>>which Marx marked "to be brought forward":
>>>>
>>>>"The first category in which bourgeois wealth presents itself is that of
>>>>the *commodity*. The commodity itself appears as unity of two aspects. It
>>>>is *use value*, i.e. object of the satisfaction of any system whatever of
>>>>human needs. This is its material side, which the most disparate epochs of
>>>>production may have in common, and whose examination therefore lies beyond
>>>>political economy. Use value falls within the realm of political
economy as
>>>>soon as it becomes modified by the modern relations of production, or as
>>>>it, in turn, intervenes to modify them... Now how does use value become
>>>>transformed into commodity? Vehicle of *exchange value*. Although directly
>>>>united in the commodity, use value and exchange value just as directly
>>>>split apart. Not only does the exchange value not appear as determined by
>>>>the use value, but rather furthermore, the commodity only becomes a
>>>>commodity, only realises itself as exchange value, in so far as its owner
>>>>does not relate to it as use value." (Grundrisse p. 881)
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, nothing so clear was written in either the Contribution or
>>>>Capital I.
>>>>
>>>>cheers,
>>>>Steve
>>>>At 03:18 AM 2/26/00 +0800, you wrote:
>>>>>Thanx Steve K, for your terrific exposition on labour power as a
commodity
>>>>>(OPE-L; 2403). It is interesting that you make use of Marx's Notes on
>>>>>Adolph Wagner, where Marx makes (to my knowledge) his strongest case
for a
>>>>>concept of 'social use value'.
>>>>>
>>>>>The argument goes like this: Commodites are products produced for the
use
>>>>>of others (they are *social use values*). As a concept pertaining to the
>>>>>useful properties of *commodities* the concept of use-value must
acquire in
>>>>>addition to its natural properties, a particular social form. Marx,
>>>>>stressed the point:
>>>>>
>>>>>"A thing can be useful and be the product of human labour, without
being a
>>>>>commodity. Whoever satisfies his own need through his product, does
create
>>>>>use-value, but not a commodity. In order to produce a commodity, he must
>>>>>not only produce *use-value, but use-value for others, social
use-value*…So
>>>>>use-value itself - as the use-value of the 'commodity' - possesses an
>>>>>historically specific character' (Marx, 1979-80, p.199; **Marx's
italics).
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that the argument for an historical 'social' concept of
use-value,
>>>>>is important in the context of Marx's dispute with Ricardo on the
price of
>>>>>labour. According to Marx, Ricardo cannot explain the divergence between
>>>>>the quantity and value of the labour embodied in commodities:
'Ricardo has
>>>>>in fact no answer… He determines value here, in one of the basic
>>>>>propositions of the whole system, by demand and supply - as Say notes
with
>>>>>malicious pleasure' (Marx, TSV 2, p.400).
>>>>>
>>>>>Ricardo's failure to explain how surplus value can arise - given the
>>>>>proposition of equal exchange - Marx puts down to a failure to
distinguish
>>>>>between two different *forms* taken by useful labour in capitalism.
On the
>>>>>one hand, useful labour is a quantity of expended human energy,
embodied in
>>>>>commodities and consumed ex post following exchange: it is *materialised
>>>>>labour*. On the other hand, labour-power exists in commodity-form as
>>>>>*living labour*, consumed ex ante in production. Opposition between the
>>>>>bodily expression of useful labour and its commodification in the form of
>>>>>labour-power explains why the 'law' of equal exchange does not apply:
>>>>>'surplus value itself is derived from a specific use-value of
labour-power
>>>>>which belongs to it exclusively' (Marx, 1879-80, p.200).
>>>>>
>>>>>The concept of 'social use-value' looks to be a crucial element of a
theory
>>>>>of capitalism as a system of commodity production based on wage
labour. As
>>>>>Marx, himself, commented in his Notes on Adolph Wagner: 'only an
>>>>>obscurantist' could fail to recognise that the commodity is an
>>>>>'historically specific' form of use-value, 'the simplest social form in
>>>>>which the labour product is presented in contemporary society' (Notes
on W,
>>>>>1879-80, p.198). As a commodity, labour-power is itself a 'social
>>>>>use-value' - a very important one since it creates value.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, the social character of the commodity-form of use-value is
>>>>>less clear in *Capital*. Having described use-value as a natural quality
>>>>>of 'usefulness' constituting the 'content of wealth, whatever its social
>>>>>form may be', Marx turns immediately to the 'form of society' in which
>>>>>these natural use-values (products) assume a social relation as
>>>>>commodities: as exchange values (C1, 1976, p.126). Perhaps this lack of
>>>>>clarity explains why the idea of labour-power as a special commodity
(as a
>>>>>social use-value) isn't well understood.
>>>>>comradely,
>>>>>Nicky
>>>>>------------------------------------
>>>>>At 07:53 24/02/00 +1100, you wrote:
>>>>>>Gerry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>marx had much the sort of hypothetical conversation you develop with
>>>>>>Ricardo--in which case Marx played the role of Samuelson. He didn't need
>>>>>>any help from OPE, as it happens! Instead, OPE needs to read him a bit
>>more
>>>>>>carefully!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The position you ascribe to Marx, he actually ascribes to Ricardo (of
the
>>>>>>single "c"!), and in one of my favourite lines, notes that "Ricardo
has in
>>>>>>fact no answer, other than ... the law of supply and demand ... He
>>>>>>determines *value* here, in one of the basic propositions of the whole
>>>>>>system, by *demand and supply*---as Say notes with malicious pleasure."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marx's "conversation" with Ricardo, from Theories of Surplus Value Vol.
>>II,
>>>>>>is reproduced between the dashes:
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>15.2.1 Quantity of labour and value of labour. [As presented by Ricardo
>>>>>>the problem of the exchange of labour for capital cannot be solved]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is clear that the proportional quantity of labour contained in two
>>>>>>commodities A and B, is absolutely unaffected by whether the workers who
>>>>>>produce A and B receive much or little of the product of their
labour. The
>>>>>>value of A and B is determined by the *quantity of labour* which their
>>>>>>production costs, and not by the *costs of labour* to the owners of A
and
>>>>>>B. Quantity of labour and value of labour are two different
>>things."(TSV 2:
>>>>>>p. 395)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Now wage-labour, however, is a *commodity*. It is even the basis on
which
>>>>>>the production of *products* as
>>>>>>*commodities* takes place. The *law of values* is not applicable to it.
>>>>>>Capitalist production therefore is not governed at all by this law...
The
>>>>>>second ... [problem] ... lies in the fact that the *utilisation* of a
>>>>>>commodity (as capital) is proportional not to the amount of labour it
>>>>>>contains, but to the extent to which it commands the *labour of others*,
>>>>>>gives power over *more* labour than it itself contains. This in fact
is a
>>>>>>second latent reason for asserting that since the beginning of
capitalist
>>>>>>production, the value of commodities is determined not by the labour
they
>>>>>>contain but by the living labour which they command, in other words, by
>>the
>>>>>>*value of labour*."(TSV 2: p. 397)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"But how does the commodity labour differ from other commodities? One is
>>>>>>*living labour* and the other *materialised* labour. They are,
therefore,
>>>>>>only two different forms of labour. Since the difference is only a
matter
>>>>>>of form, why should a law apply to one and not to the other? Ricardo
does
>>>>>>not answer---he does not even raise this question."(TSV 2: pp. 397-98)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The question is just why *labour* and the *commodities against which
>>it is
>>>>>>exchanged*, do not exchange according to the law of value, i.e.
according
>>>>>>to the relative quantities of labour. Posed in this way,
*presupposing the
>>>>>>law of value*, the question is intrinsically insoluble, because
>>*labour* as
>>>>>>such is counterposed to *commodity*..."(TSV 2: p. 398)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>15.2.2 @subsection = Value of labour power. Value of labour. [Ricardo's
>>>>>>confusion of labour with labour-power. Concept of the "natural price of
>>>>>>labour".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Summarising Ricardo, Marx says that in Ricardo's system "The *value of
>>>>>>labour* is therefore determined by the *means of subsistence* which,
in a
>>>>>>given society, are traditionally *necessary* for the maintenance and
>>>>>>reproduction of the labourers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But why? By what law is the *value of labour* determined in this way?
>>>>>>Ricardo has in fact no answer, other than ... the law of supply and
demand
>>>>>>... He determines *value* here, in one of the basic propositions of the
>>>>>>whole system, by *demand and supply*---as Say notes with malicious
>>>>>>pleasure."(TSV 2: p. 400)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"As wages are equal to the necessary means of subsistence,... If the
value
>>>>>>of the means of subsistence changes, then the value of the real wage
>>>>>>changes... And here we have the *hidden reason* for Adam Smith's
>>assertion,
>>>>>>that as soon as capital, and consequently wage labour, intervenes, the
>>>>>>value of the product is not regulated by the quantity of labour bestowed
>>>>>>upon it, but by the quantity of labour it can command. The value of corn
>>>>>>determined by labour-time, changes; but, so long as the natural price of
>>>>>>labour is paid, the quantity of
>>>>>>labour that the quarter of corn can command remains the same. "(TSV
2: p.
>>>>>>401)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>15.2.3 @subsection = Surplus-value. [An analysis of the source of
surplus
>>>>>>value is lacking in Ricardo's work. His concept of the working day as a
>>>>>>fixed magnitude.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Apart from the confusion between labour and labour-power, Ricardo
defines
>>>>>>the average wages or the value of labour correctly. For he says that
it is
>>>>>>determined ... by the *labour-time which it costs to produce it*;
that is,
>>>>>>by the *quantity of labour materialised* in the means of subsistence of
>>the
>>>>>>labourer."(TSV 2: p. 404)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However Marx argues that he failed to show that only part of the
worker's
>>>>>>working day is used to reproduce this value, while another part becomes
>>>>>>surplus-value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ricardo starts out from the actual fact of capitalist production. The
>>>>>>value of labour is smaller than the value of the product which it
>>>>>>creates.... The excess of the value of the product *over* the value
of the
>>>>>>wages is the surplus-value.... For him, it is a fact, that the value of
>>the
>>>>>>product is greater than the value of the wages. How this fact arises,
>>>>>>remains unclear. The total working-day *is greater* than that part of
the
>>>>>>working day which is required for the production of wages. Why? That
does
>>>>>>not emerge."(TSV 2: pp. 405-06)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Typically, Marx does not provide his own answer clearly at this point
>>(what
>>>>>>Marx really lacked was a good editor!). Instead, you can find a
reasonable
>>>>>>didactic statement of it in his critique of Wagner (between the dashes
>>>>>again):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Secondly, only an obscurantist, who has not understood a word of
>>>>>>*Capital*, can conclude: Because Marx, in a note to the first edition of
>>>>>>*Capital*, overthrows all the German professorial twaddle on
>>`use-value' in
>>>>>>general, and refers readers who want to know something about actual
>>>>>>use-value to `commercial guides',---therefore, *use-value* does not play
>>>>>>any role in his work...."(Wagner: p. 198-99.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Whoever satisfies his own need through his product, does create a use
>>>>>>value, but not a commodity. In order to produce a commodity, *he must
not
>>>>>>only produce a use value,* but *use-value for others, social use
>>value*. So
>>>>>>use value itself---as the use value of the `commodity'---possesses an
>>>>>>historically specific character."(Wagner: p. 199.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"On the other hand, the obscurantist has overlooked that my analysis of
>>the
>>>>>>commodity does not stop at the dual mode in which the commodity is
>>>>>>presented, [but] presses forward [so] that in the dual nature of the
>>>>>>commodity there is presented the twofold *character* of *labour*, whose
>>>>>>product it is: *useful* labour, i.e., the concrete modes of labour,
which
>>>>>>create use values, and abstract *labour, labour as the
>>>>>>expenditure of labour-power*,... that *surplus value* itself is derived
>>>>>>from a `specific' *use-value of
>>>>>>labour-power* which belongs to it exclusively etc etc., that hence
with me
>>>>>>use value plays an important role completely different than [it did]] in
>>>>>>previous [political] economy, but that, *nota bene*, it only comes into
>>the
>>>>>>picture where such consideration [of value, use value, etc.] springs
from
>>>>>>the analysis of given economic forms, not from helter-skelter quibbling
>>>>>>over the concepts or words `use-value' and `value'."(Wagner: p. 200.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marx's "way out", in other words, is not that labor is not a commodity,
>>but
>>>>>>an analysis of the commodity itself which differs from any preceding
>>>>>>commodity, and in which the concept of use-value is crucial. The best
>>>>>>statement of that is in Capital I:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>The past labour that is embodied in the labour-power, and the living
>>labour
>>>>>>that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its
>>>>>>daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. The former
>>>>>>determines the exchange value of the labour-power, the latter is its use
>>>>>>value. The fact that half a [working] day's labour is necessary to keep
>>the
>>>>>>labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from
>>>>>>working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value
>>>>>>which that labour-power creates in the labour process, are two entirely
>>>>>>different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the
>>>>>>capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power... What
>>>>>>really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity
>>>>>>possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value than it
>>>>>>has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from
>>>>>>labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the
>>>>>>'eternal laws' of the exchange of commodities. The seller of
labour-power,
>>>>>>like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and
>>>>>>parts with its use-value. (Capital I: p. 188)
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Finally, Marx's reason is somewhat clearer: his analysis of why
>>>>>>surplus-value arises from labor/labor-power is derived from a
>>(dialectical)
>>>>>>analysis of the commodity, in which the concepts of use-value and
>>>>>>exchange-value are essential. The basic notion is that a consumer of
*any*
>>>>>>commodity in capitalism pays a commodity's exchange-value in order to
>>>>>>commandeer its use-value. As to why this distinction exists, we have to
>>>>>>turn to earlier in Vol I:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>"The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the
boundaries of
>>>>>>such communities, at their points of contact with other similar
>>>>>>communities, or with members of the latter. So soon, however, as
products
>>>>>>once become commodities in the external relations of a community, they
>>>>>>also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse. The
proportions
>>>>>>in which they are exchangeable are at first quite a matter of chance.
What
>>>>>>makes them exchangeable is the mutual desire of their owners to alienate
>>>>>>them. Meantime the need for foreign objects of utility gradually
>>>>>>establishes itself. The constant repetition of exchange makes it a
normal
>>>>>>social act. In the course of time, therefore, some portion at least
of the
>>>>>>products of labour must be produced with a special view to exchange.
From
>>>>>>that moment the distinction becomes firmly established between the
utility
>>>>>>of an object for the purposes of consumption, and its utility for the
>>>>>>purposes of exchange. Its use-value becomes distinguished from its
>>>>>>exchange-value. On the other hand, the quantitative proportion in which
>>the
>>>>>>articles are exchangeable, becomes dependent on their production
itself."
>>>>>>(Capital I: p. 91)
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Marx's analysis of the commodity therefore is his "way out", with his
>>>>>>argument being that the labor exchange is like that of any other
>>commodity,
>>>>>>but that this commodity has the peculiar attribute that its use-value to
>>>>>>its capitalist consumer is not qualitative but quantitative. Since the
>>>>>>general rules of commodity exchange, according to marx, mean that
>>use-value
>>>>>>and exchange-value are incommensurable, this translates to a
quantitative
>>>>>>difference between the two in the case of this exchange, and this is the
>>>>>>source of surplus value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, I argue that this "way out" generates another dilemma for Marx
>>>>>>which he can't solve: how to prove that labor/labor-power is the only
>>>>>>commodity to which this applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 01:29 PM 2/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:17:07 +0100
>>>>>>>From: Ernesto Screpanti <screpanti@unisi.it>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear comrades,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It seems to me that the discussion on the employment contract is
going in
>>>>>>>several directions that, although very interesting, are inducing us to
>>lose
>>>>>>>focus on the real theoretical problem. Therefore I hope you will
allow me
>>>>>>>to try to redress the discussion. And let me start with an attempt to
>>>>>>>bring to light two important theoretical difficulties of Marx's
>>theories of
>>>>>>>exploitation and class. These are the problems that prompted my
research
>>>>>>>agenda on the employment contract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. The "labour-power value" paradox. Marx and Engels assume the so
called
>>>>>>>"law of value" or "low of exchange", whereby any commodity is paid
in the
>>>>>>>market its real value (to avoid entering the TLV question, let me
assume
>>>>>>>that commoditities exchange at production prices). Competition brings
>>about
>>>>>>>this result. Marx and Engels make this assumption to make sure that the
>>>>>>>analysis of exploitation is focused on production conditions and not on
>>>>>>>unequal exchange in the market. In analytical terms the law of value
>>can be
>>>>>>>reformualte as follows: The price of any commodity coincides with its
>>>>>>>production costs and with the present value of its future streams of
>>>>>>services.
>>>>>>>The question is: Where does a positive profit come out if labour
>>power too
>>>>>>>is a commodity? If competition compels it to receive a price coinciding
>>>>>>>with the present value of its future streems of services, there can
be no
>>>>>>>exploitation. Marx would answer - If the capitalists earn no profit
they
>>>>>>>reduce investments, the industrial reserve army rises, etc. etc.
>>Therefore
>>>>>>>the capitalist must earn at least a "normal" profit.
>>>>>>>Samuleson would answer: Oh, yes! This precisely what I say. In fact the
>>>>>>>normal profit in competitive equilibrium is nil.
>>>>>>>Marx - But the value of labour power is a subsistence wage.
>>>>>>>Samuelson - But certainly not a purely physical subsistence.
>>>>>>>Marx - Certainly not. There are habits and customs and trade unions and
>>>>>>>bargaining.
>>>>>>>Samuelson - No. You assumed comnpetition. Therefore no bargaining.
>>>>>>>Marx: OK. So what?
>>>>>>>Samuelson - The long run equilibrium prices are fixed by the forces of
>>>>>>>competition at the level that makes them coincide with the cost of
>>>>>>>production. The value of labour power must be established
accordingly, if
>>>>>>>labour power is a commodity. And also the production conditions of
labour
>>>>>>>power must be determined accordingly
>>>>>>>Enters Veblen - Pricesely what I say: Habits and customs are
>>endogenous in
>>>>>>>the long run.
>>>>>>>Marx - Yes, but I insist: so what?
>>>>>>>Samuelson - If there is a positive profit, investements increase, the
>>>>>>>industrial reserve army shrinks and wages (and habits and customs,
in the
>>>>>>>long run, and therefore the real production cost of labour power)
rise to
>>>>>>>their equilibrium value. When they reach this value profits must be
nil.
>>>>>>>Marx - But the subsistence wage changes slowly, certainly much slower
>>than
>>>>>>>the the market prices of the other commodities.
>>>>>>>Samuelson - This means that the law of value, that you assumed to avoid
>>>>>>>explaining exploitation as a production phenomen and not as a market
>>>>>>>phenomen, does not apply to labour power. You can account for
>>exploitation
>>>>>>>only if the law of value does not apply to labour power.
>>>>>>>Marx - what does that mean?
>>>>>>>Samuelson - It means that you are explaing exploitation as a market
>>>>>>>phenomenon: there is exploitation because there is no perfect
competition
>>>>>>>in the labour market!
>>>>>>>Marx - OPEL comrades, help!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Screpanti - there is only one way out: Labour power is not a
>>commodity. The
>>>>>>>wage is not a price of a commodity. The labour market does not exist.
>>Trade
>>>>>>>Unions and labour movements do exists. Exploitation is the
consequence of
>>>>>>>the exercise of power in the labour process. It occurs because the wage
>>>>>>>rate is fixed through bargaining ex ante (before the beginning of the
>>>>>>>production process), while labour productivity is determined by the
>>>>>>>capitalists' power ex post (i.e. in the labour process).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2) The paradox of "class demarcation". Now I have no time to present
you
>>>>>>>this second problem. Let me reserve it for another message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Comradely
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ernesto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ernesto Screpanti
>>>>>>>Dipartimento di Economia Politica
>>>>>>>Piazza S. Francesco 1
>>>>>>>53100 Siena
>>>>>>>tel: 0577 232784
>>>>>>>fax: 0577 232661
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dr. Steve Keen
>>>>>>Senior Lecturer
>>>>>>Economics & Finance
>>>>>>University of Western Sydney Macarthur
>>>>>>Building 11 Room 30,
>>>>>>Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
>>>>>>PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
>>>>>>Australia
>>>>>>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>>>>>>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>>>>>>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>>>>>>Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Dr. Steve Keen
>>>>Senior Lecturer
>>>>Economics & Finance
>>>>University of Western Sydney Macarthur
>>>>Building 11 Room 30,
>>>>Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
>>>>PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
>>>>Australia
>>>>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>>>>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>>>>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>>>>Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Riccardo Bellofiore
>>>Office: Department of Economics
>>> Piazza Rosate, 2
>>> I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
>>>Home: Via Massena, 51
>>> I-10128 Torino, Italy
>>>e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
>>>tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
>>> +39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
>>> +39 011 5819619 (home)
>>>fax: +39 035 249975
>>>
>>>
>>Dr. Steve Keen
>>Senior Lecturer
>>Economics & Finance
>>University of Western Sydney Macarthur
>>Building 11 Room 30,
>>Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
>>PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
>>Australia
>>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>>Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
>
>
>
>
> Riccardo Bellofiore
>Office: Department of Economics
> Piazza Rosate, 2
> I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
>Home: Via Massena, 51
> I-10128 Torino, Italy
>e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
>tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
> +39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
> +39 011 5819619 (home)
>fax: +39 035 249975
>
>
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
Australia
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:47 EDT