[Marxism-Thaxis] Return after 10 years
GERALD DOWNING gerdowning at btinternet.com Tue May 12 06:58:01 MDT 2009 Comrades,This is a return after about ten years. Here is a post from that time (2000) and an add for my WRP Explosion going online Comradely Gerry DowningAnd That's Dialectical! GD: I am with Charles Brown 100% (almost) in this dispute. ^ CB: Good to hear from you , comrade Gerry ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate
CeJ jannuzi If Cockshott had waited a bit more, he might not look the complete fool he does here. This is still largely an argument based on the idea that logistics is economics turned into a hard science. That would be logistics on a macro-economic scale. That may be, but it is no more a science of political economy than econometrics. CJ ^ CB: What's logistics ? ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate
CeJ jannuzi The Nobel Prize in Economics is arguably not a real Nobel Prize since Alfred Nobel made no provision for such a prize in his will. It was instead established by the Bank of Sweden in the late 1960s as a Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Yeah most people don't recall that it was first awarded in 1969! And they arguably did this for ideological reasons since conventional mainstream economics was coming under fire in the wake of the upheavals of the 1960s. Do you think it was still yet another time when the liberal-conservative spectrum was afraid of the success of some form of socialism (while both liberals and conservatives have long cherry-picked the weirdo Austrians and other various heterodoxists and libertarians) ? CB: Think about it. To admit that macroeconomics can be understood scientifically is to admit that there can be macroeconomic planning, ie. centralized planning, that Hayek is wrong. So, the bourgeoisie are always going to be leery of a prize for the science of economics. This contradiction also must doom the project of every school of bourgeois, i.e. free market, economics to fail or else it undermines free market ideology. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Paul Cockshott on Leonid Kantorovich and the socialist calculation debate
CB: What's logistics ? Basically, the science of how an economy supplies and distributes goods. Kantorovich and others work in linear programming has application for logistics. One take on Hayek's so-called arguments against central planning is that he is saying central planning requires too immense a scale. In other words, you can't run an economy at a macro-economic level. See his essay: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html As for the applications of linear programming to logistics, see: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/meth4en/ch4m2en.html ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
