This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2B0CFD8CA0F7D8F432B0B227 Friends, Isn't it the prediction, rather than the abstraction, that is at issue here. If Marx were alive, I doubt he'd think much needed to be revised in terms of the abstraction, and he'd sure have a lot of evidence of relative immiseration. (see Louis's posts about suffering in various Asian nations for example). I don't know whether or not Hahnel grasps Marx's method (By the way, I think Hahnel and Albert have written lots of interesting things, including their critique of welfare economics). Lots of eminent economists have not. michael yates William S. Lear wrote: > > On Thu, September 10, 1998 at 12:04:49 (-0400) Mike Yates writes: > >Friends, > > > >I concur with Jim's assessment of Robin's analysis. Why is it that so > >many people do not grasp Marx's use of abstraction? You would think that > >economists, trained in neoclasical abstraction, would understand it > >without that much difficulty. Also, it should be noted that there is > >plenty of immiseration in the First World, certainly in D.C. where Robin > >teaches. > > As if Robin does not understand "Marx's use of abstraction". He > simply happens to think his abstractions are wrong in many cases. Is > criticism of the abstraction about the increasing immiseration of the > working class an instance of not grasping the abstraction, or simply > disagreeing with it? What if Marx himself were later to decide that > this want' quite right? Would Marx himself be guilty of the charge > you so easily level at Robin? > > Bill --------------2B0CFD8CA0F7D8F432B0B227 begin: vcard fn: Michael Yates n: Yates;Michael org: University of Pittsburgh email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] title: Dept. of Economics x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------2B0CFD8CA0F7D8F432B0B227--
