[PEN-L:5493] Re: Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, bill mitchell wrote: Rod gives us his clear logic: 4. Society is infested with parasites (capitalists, landlords, clergy, university professors) who suck off the cream without contributing. Therefore society must produce a surplus above what is needed to reproduce itself. i could comment on the others but this one has major problems. like all simplifications the qualifications begin. the need to produce a surplus is not a therefore following the statement that society is infested with parasites (cappos, landlords or unproductive labour (in the marxian sense)). in a simple socialist (parasite free) two sector economy producing consumption and capital goods, the workers in the consumption goods sector _have to_ produce a surplus if the capital goods sector workers are to eat! if parasites, then surplus is a false logic and does not fit into the LTV. bill Think Macro. Not Micro. Of course everyone has to eat. What you have done is change the meaning of surplus in mid-argument. If the capital goods workers are contributing to necessary output they are not consuming social surplus. Value is not defined in terms of individual activity but social activity. The price system measures the individual. The value system measures the social. -- Rod
[PEN-L:5492] Re: Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
Rod gives us his clear logic: The labour theory of value is dead simple. Here it is in seven easy steps. steps 1-3 deleted 4. Society is infested with parasites (capitalists, landlords, clergy, university professors) who suck off the cream without contributing. Therefore society must produce a surplus above what is needed to reproduce itself. steps 5-7 deleted. i could comment on the others but this one has major problems. like all simplifications the qualifications begin. the need to produce a surplus is not a therefore following the statement that society is infested with parasites (cappos, landlords or unproductive labour (in the marxian sense)). in a simple socialist (parasite free) two sector economy producing consumption and capital goods, the workers in the consumption goods sector _have to_ produce a surplus if the capital goods sector workers are to eat! if parasites, then surplus is a false logic and does not fit into the LTV. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:5491] Joan Robinson
I couldn't resist it: "After the war, Keynes' theory was accepted as a new orthodoxy without the old one being rethought. In modern textbooks, the pendulum still swings, TENDING towards its equilibrium point. Market forces allocate given factors of production between alternative users, investment is a sacrifice of present consumption, and the rate of interest measures society's discount of the future. All the slogans are repeated unchanged." Joan Robinson "What has become of the Keynesian Revolution" in After Keynes (Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1973) p. 172 Acknowledgements and thanks to George Hallam
[PEN-L:5490] Re: Joan Robinson quote
Doug writes I've just been wrestling with some of Stiglitz Co.'s stuff on info asymmetries. It seems that it takes arguments that could be made in no more than a paragraph of Robinson-clear English and puts them into pages of formulas. Am I missing something? Didn't Ricardo make the argument about adverse selection and high interest rates in a sentence or two? As someone who has also struggled through a lot of Stiglitz's stuff, I have a certain amount of sympathy with these sentiments. However, I also think there is much more there than Doug suggests. To take Doug's example, if I'm correct in guessing what passage in Ricardo he's referring to, then no, Ricardo didn't make the argument about adverse selection and high interest rates. That is, if this is the passage in question (correct me if it isn't!): "To the question, 'who would lend money to farmers, manufacturers, and merchants, at 5 per cent per annum, when another borrower, having little credit, would give 7 or 8?' I reply, that every prudent and reasonable man would. Because the rate of interest is 7 or 8 per cent there, where the lender runs extraordinary risk, is this any reason that it should be equally high in those places where they are secured from such risks?" , then it need not be read as invoking adverse selection at all. If adverse selection is in fact invoked here, the argument is at best ambiguous. One possible interpretation is that Ricardo is simply stating that interest rate differentials must reflect risk differentials. Other things equal, and independent of strategic issues, a collateralized loan involves less risk than an unsecured one, so its risk premium is lower. A second interpretation involves "moral hazard" (i.e., a strategic problem related to unobserved actions) rather than adverse selection (a strategic problem related to unobserved characteristics): collateral is one known solution to the canonical "moral hazard" problem. [Can you tell that this term was invented by the insurance industry?] Finally, one could stretch it and read Ricardo as talking about adverse selection in a manner which parallels that of Stiglitz, but a passage necessary to confirm this interpretation is missing: namely, the argument that raising the interest rate *increases the pool* of loan applicants who have poorer prospects of repaying the interest. Taking the broad view, what Stiglitz has done is to force the mainstream to take issues related to asymmetric information seriously. While one could say that this is the mainstream's problem, not ours, I think it is fair to say that radical economists also need to have a more coherent understanding of the economic implications of informational problems. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:5489] Re: whither pen-l
Bill I just cannot see all these things you want doug being consistent with a desired (rapacious) rate of profit. and Kalecki in his "political aspects of full employment" article is as a coherent statement of why SD is a flawed movement as there is. the captains of industry don't like it. Paul The application of social democratic policies in the Uk did lead, over two or three decades to a declining rate of profit and yes, in the end the captains of industry did not like it. This led in the '70s to restructuring crisis that the right eventually one. But this was not predetermined. There was a left alternative - the alternative economic strategy put forward by the CP and the Benn wing of the Labour party. This essentially aimed at the next step - the socialisation of investment, to get over the investment strike. The failure of this alternative was partly an effect of the relative political imaturity of the Trades Union movement, which in the mid 70s had considerable political power and could have imposed this as part of the terms of any social contract. We have now regressed politically to the situation of the '20s or 30s and the development of a working class movement strong enough to re-impose social democracy would be a considerable step forward.
[PEN-L:5488] Re: Joan Robinson quote
Also cannot cite exactly where it is, although I know it is written down, but my favorite along these lines is her wisecrack about putting the rabbit in the hat in front of the audience and then taking it back out again with great drama and surprise. Barkley Rosser James Madison University
[PEN-L:5486] Re: Joan Robinson quote
At 8:10 AM 6/13/95, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug wrote: While we're on the subject of things Joan Robinson may or may not have said, did she actually say that since she never learned math she had to learn to think instead? If so, where? Doug, I know I've seen it, but I'm still looking. I did run across this related passage in her essay "Thinking about Thinking" reprinted in WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS: "Mathematical logic is a powerful tool of thought, but its application in economic theory generally seems to consist merely of putting circular arguments into algebra." Ah progress. Now they can put circular arguments into calculus too! Though I suppose calculus allows for more complex recursive shapes than mere circles. I've just been wrestling with some of Stiglitz Co.'s stuff on info asymmetries. It seems that it takes arguments that could be made in no more than a paragraph of Robinson-clear English and puts them into pages of formulas. Am I missing something? Didn't Ricardo make the argument about adverse selection and high interest rates in a sentence or two? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5485] Request for Papers: SRI
Please copy and distribute as you see fit. Conventional investment wisdom makes no presumptions about the benefits of social objectives as they apply to asset management. Relative rate of return is the dominant measure of success. Social investors take a different view. They seek investment vehicles which will hopefully achieve both a competitive return and a qualitative improvement in the well being of society at large. Alternative social investments (ASI) are now a well established, if still small, niche within the broader investment realm. However, to date, the results of using ASI's in portfolios have been subjected to traditional measures of performance -- that is, looking at the total return attributions of each individual investment. At Franklin, we believe that it is perhaps more appropriate to apply modern portfolio theory and view ASI's from the perspective of "risk control". To remedy this situation, Franklin Research Development Corp., a 12- year-old investment counseling firm whose investment philosophy is rooted in socially responsible principles, is sponsoring a competition for papers that explore the proposition below: A variety of articles have been published that discuss the extent to which alternative social investments have historically added value to relative investment performance, particularly of institutional equity funds like retirement funds. However, in our experience, no articles have been presented regarding the influence of modern portfolio theory on ASI's, including economically targeted investments. Arguably, case law has gradually swung away from judging isolated investments (especially within pension funds under the mantle of ERISA) on the basis of risk of large losses toward measuring the overall risk of a portfolio in aggregate. Therefore, the impact of any single investment's incremental contribution to, or covariance with, the risk characteristics of other portfolio holdings is attracting attention as to the merits of investing in such vehicles as alternative social investments. We need to find out if it can be shown using empirical data that, by adding one or more ASI's which have low or negative covariance with other investments already in portfolios, overall variance may actually be reduced. Inquiries may be directed to us via the Internet at [EMAIL PROTECTED], but any entries must be submitted by a deadline of December 31, 1995. All papers will be reviewed by a distinguished panel of professors assembled from Boston College Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, and the Stern School of Business at New York University. All prizes to be awarded shall be in cash: first prize will be $1,500; second prize will be $750; and there will be two third prizes of $250 each. Franlin Research Development 711 Atlantic Ave. Boston, MA 02111 (617) 423-6655 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5484] Re: Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
I must say that this discussion has left me baffled. It appears that all parties are throwing words around without thinking. The nonsense that has been written on the so-called transformation problem seems to have had a pernicious effect on clear logic. The labour theory of value is dead simple. Here it is in seven easy steps. 1. Human societies live/survive by appropriating and transforming the environment in a purposeful (teleologial) manner. I.e. they labour. 2. That transformed state of nature has a value to society. The purpose of the labour was to create a situation that is more valued than the previous one. 3. Conservation (economizing) principle -- A viable society must create enough value to continually reproduce itself. 4. Society is infested with parasites (capitalists, landlords, clergy, university professors) who suck off the cream without contributing. Therefore society must produce a surplus above what is needed to reproduce itself. 5. Capitalist societies base decisions on how to allocate their value producing activities on the signals received from prices. 6. Since capitalism appears (at least in the short run) to be a viable system. Then prices must reflect something about values. 7. This is where the transformation problem comes in. Is the information given by prices sufficient to allow society to get the message about values? Price are the medium - Values are the message. And despite what McLuhen says the medium is not the message. It is not a theory of prices. It is a theory of how prices do their job. So never mind your eraser theorems a la Samuelson. If you rub out values you rub out the important half of the equation. --Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5483] Re: Joan Robinson quote
I heard her say it once in a lecture. She also said of a foe "His argument was so weak he had to write it in Algebra." Rod On Tue, 13 Jun 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: While we're on the subject of things Joan Robinson may or may not have said, did she actually say that since she never learned math she had to learn to think instead? If so, where? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5482] URPE conference info: long
UNION FOR RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY 1995 SUMMER CONFERENCE: Economic Development and Community Strategies August 19-22, Camp Chinqueka Bantam, CT THE CONTRACT "ON" AMERICA suggests bleak times ahead for communities and activists working for jobs, dignity, hope and justice around the country. What will become of job creation strategies as state governments are forced to cut programs and employment, and as poor parents are under increasing pressure to accept inadequate and still scarce jobs? Can worker cooperatives survive in the face of new legislation that favors established business-as-usual businesses? OR, might the continued retrenchment of the federal government from programs for the poor and for communities create a new progressive dynamic, as activists are challenged to forge stronger, more independent grass-roots organizations, and new alliances for development on the national scene? What can political economists learn from the experiences of community development around the country and abroad? And, for that matter, WHAT LESSONS might political economy offer to communities around the country, now reeling under the assault of the Republican agenda? Is community economic development a sufficient replacement for effective macroeconomic policies for job growth and income equity? How far can local efforts go in the face of structural trends and fiscal policies that work against equity, justice, and hope? Should political economists focus more on thinking globally, or acting locally? These are among the questions that will be considered at the 1995 URPE Summer Conference. The first night's plenary, "Community Economic Development: Road Forward or Dead End?" will be a debate on the opportunities and constraints facing community development. Speakers include Jim Benn of the Federation for Industrial Reform and Renewal and Jerome Scott of Project South, with Doug Henwood of the _Left Business Observer_ serving as moderator. The second plenary, "Community Economic Development: Lessons from the Field" will present a panel of community activists offering their experiences and perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of community development. Speakers include Len Krimerman, editor of _Grassroots Economic Organizing_, Curtis Haynes of the University of Buffalo, and Nadya Papillon, director of New Chicago. The third plenary will be a discussion of URPE's role in these interesting times. "Whither URPE? Political Economy in a Dismal Age" will bring long-time URPE-ers together with newer members with a range of interests and concerns, to consider who we are now and where we should be going as an organization, to meet the needs of our membership and to provide service to the broader left community. Speakers include Thomas Weisskopf of the University of Michigan, Marianne Hill of Project Hope, and Germai Medhanie of _Grassroots Economic Organizing_. As always, the conference will provide an opportunity for an exchange of views and research on a wide range of topics through workshops and retooling sessions. Workshops on community development and a roundtable on the right wing agenda have been suggested, and we would welcome more on those and other topics relating to political economy. Pedagogy sessions are being developed on teaching mainstream economics, on games and interactive teaching techniques, and on incorporating race and gender topics into introductory courses. Those interested in participating in workshop presentations are encouraged to contact Dawn Saunders ([EMAIL PROTECTED], or P.O. Box 530, E. Middlebury, VT 05740), by July 1. And, of course, the summer conference is summer camp for grown-ups, and kids too! The ever-popular Intergenerational Olympics returns, as does the nightly entertainment, including campfire singing, contradancing, and the D.J. dance. Swimming, boating, hiking, games, and just general fun in the sun (or rain, as the case may be) also await URPE campers. Childcare will be supervised by an experienced professional. Come one, come all, to Camp Chinqueka in Bantam, Connecticut (near Litchfield) this August, to learn, to relax, to share your research, to meet old (and new!) friends. REGISTRATION FORM (DO NOT register on line: send to URPE National Office, 1 Summer St., Somerville, MA 02143) Name(s): __ Address: __ Phone: __ Number of Adults Registered___ Number of Children_ Number of Children Requiring Childcare Ages of Children___ Number of People eating vegetarian food_ Are you an URPE member? ___ (see below if wish to join) Date and time of arrival___ and departure __ Lodging preferred: co-ed cabin ___ single gender
[PEN-L:5480] Re: Joan Robinson quote
Doug wrote: While we're on the subject of things Joan Robinson may or may not have said, did she actually say that since she never learned math she had to learn to think instead? If so, where? Doug, I know I've seen it, but I'm still looking. I did run across this related passage in her essay "Thinking about Thinking" reprinted in WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS: "Mathematical logic is a powerful tool of thought, but its application in economic theory generally seems to consist merely of putting circular arguments into algebra."
[PEN-L:5481] Re: suburbs/housing and SSAs
Posted on 12 Jun 1995 at 13:58:27 by TELEC List Distributor (011802) [PEN-L:5461] Re: suburbs/housing and SSAs Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 10:31:18 -0700 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Eric Nilsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marshall Feldman wrote that the run-up in housing prices led to a possible reduction in the cost of job loss. But might that only apply to those who bought their homes before the rapid rise in prices? Those who bought homes after prices went up rapidly found themselves stuck with huge monthly mortgage payments. For these folks, job loss might lead not only to the loss of income but the possibility of the loss of their home as they became unable to make their monthly payments. Sure, but remember a few things. First, before WWII around 60% of the population rented, but by the '60's around 65% owned. Forget house price inflation for the moment and consider how the consumer credit institutions preserved shelter for homeowners. You have to miss several installments before the lender comes to foreclose; this is most true for housing, less true for consumer durables. It particularly holds when lenders hold mortgages in specific communities. Thus, being out on strike in a place like Lordstown in 1965 puts one at less risk than in say, Flint in the '30s. Second, house price inflation during the '70s was very uneven. It applies almost not at all to the midwest and east. Much more to California (the East Coast picked up in the '80s). What you say is true, but remember that housing turnover rates are class-specific (blue collar workers have lower turnover rates than say white collar professionals) and age-specific. In any case, turnover takes place among a small fraction of all owners. So, workers in California who had homes before the boom and who either cashed in or just smiled at their ballooning equity had an alternate source of income. Those who were not owners were generally young, but still in the minority in most local labor markets. In short, we argue, pase Aglietta who argues suburbanization lowered the cost of labor power, that 1) suburbanization primarily structured demand, 2) it was wasteful and actually raised the cost of labor power (institutionalizing norms that absorbed productivity increases in further expenditures rather than in either savings or shorter working hours), 3) its specific institutional expression lowered the short-term cost of job loss through the specific mechanisms designed to protect lenders. The impacts of house-price inflation were relatively minor compared to these larger patterns, confined to specific local labor markets, and within the latter further lessened the overall cost of job loss. (Our library doesn't have the journal with Marshall's article in it so forgive me if this is discussed in the article.) Marshall also wrote, One thing that regulationists sometimes overlook is the double dynamic of the regime of accumulation (fordism here) and the relative place of the individual country (social formation for the orthodox) in the world system. The US was fordism's global hegemon, and US fordism was a particular flavor relying heavily on suburbanization instead of social democracy. Would you say a bit more about the link between US hegemony and the fact the US social formation relied heavily on suburbanization. What impact this have in your approach? Sure, there are specific connections between the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and the internal problems the US was having with stagflation. These, in turn, can be partly traced to the domestic financial system which was strongly tied to housing, real estate, and postwar suburbanization. .. .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/792-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
[PEN-L:5479] Re: Joan Robinson quote
While we're on the subject of things Joan Robinson may or may not have said, did she actually say that since she never learned math she had to learn to think instead? If so, where? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5478] 1995-06-12 President on Lane Kirkland Retirement
Lane Kirkland, the kind of labor leader the former governor of a right-to-work state could love - Doug Henwood Delivered-By-The-Graces-Of: White House Electronic Publications Precedence: Bulk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 20:05-0400 From: The White House [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 1995-06-12 President on Lane Kirkland Retirement Keywords: Ceremonial-Remarks, Economy, Labor, President, Recognition Document-ID: PDI://OMA.EOP.GOV.US/1995/6/12/7.TEXT.1 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release June 12, 1995 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT American workers -- and workers around the world -- owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Lane Kirkland. For nearly five decades, he has been a catalyst for international democracy and a guiding force for workplace fairness, dignity and innovation. His record of achievement rivals the great labor leaders that came before him and his ideas and accomplishments will benefit working families for generations to come. He served with distinction during some of the toughest times for American workers and brought creativity, a laser-like determination, true grit and an unparalleled intellect to his job as president of the AFL-CIO. Hillary and I wish him the very best for the future, and will always be grateful for his strong support, keen advice and valued friendship. -30-30-30-
[PEN-L:5477] Re: Joan Robinson quote
In a similar vein, Marx wrote (somewhere in _Capital_, I believe) that the petty-bourgeois exploits him/herself (obviously a paraphrase).
[PEN-L:5476] Re: Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
Jerry and Ajit have been having a friendly conversation - the type us left wingers are good at. boys. well i couldn't locate the TV guide (refer previous pen-l message). as to sects..Jerry got me tongue tied: post concerning the role of the "transformation" in Marx's thought. Jim and I do not, though, belong to the "same sect" **or** to any sect at all (at least, I know that I don't belong to any sect). so he and jim do not belong to the same sect, because he doesn't belong to any sect, but then under that reasoning maybe jim does, but it is not the sect that jerry belongs to b/c he knows he doesn't belong to one. fuck, i might have to join one myself after that. Anyway Jerry said: commodity fetishism and my own. You might be surprised to hear that I **agree** with some of your criticism of the "societal factory" analogy. Well i think Jim's societal factory analogy is pretty swish. it reminds me a lot of a "first class" piece of writing by Ronald Meek (Smith Marx and After i think) when he talks about the purpose of the movement from Vol 1 to Vol 3. Vol 1, jim's societal factory, is not about prices at all, it is about the origins of profit (not profit which is only revealed at the level of prices and exchange - that is Vol 3). Vol 1 is the foundations of capitalist analysis and for Colin's benefit the foundations of class mechanics. when orthodox economists rave on about micro foundations and the rigour of some simple, trivial, and essentially irrevelant calculus, i always tell them that my foundations, my representative firm (societal factory), my fundamentals lie in Vol 1 of capital. the story of capitalist economy begins from there and in a little pamphlet called wages, prices and profits. that is what first year micro courses should be teaching. Vol 1. forget all the rest, your HET course will pick it up i suppose. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:5475] Re: Purpose in Marx and Sraffa
Responding briefly to Ajit's most recent post: ___ I never said that "Marx's approach is not important for understanding the transformation problem". I couln't say a thing like that even in my dream. Here is an example of "bad" interpretation. __ Jerry: Jim Devine argued in a previous post that an understanding of Marx's "purpose" and method is necessary to understand the role of the transformation of value into prices of production. You responded to Devine by saying: "forget the purpose." It was that comment that I took exception to. I am pleased that you have now clarified your position. I still maintain that you have not said anything of substance yet. The kind of literature Jim Devine wants to hit me on the head with, I generally call third grade or second grade litersture at best. It has to do with one's subjective ranking. For example, Woody Allen calls his movies second grade, which tells me that he knows "good films". Your arguments seem to be coming from the similar litersture Jim Devine talks about. ___ Jerry: You are entitled to your interpretation of what constitutes "substance." I have found much of what you have written **on the Net** concerning this topic to be assertive and suggestive rather than analytical. You, evidently, feel the same concerning my short posts. Perhaps this is a failing, in part, of Net exchanges which tend to abbreviate positions. You again assert that I rely on "second grade" literature. Perhaps you could list those works that you find "first grade" and we can then discuss them. I will then reply ** privately** to you to tell you whether I have read the "first grade" materials (that way we don't have to bore the entire list with this question). I read both your old article on the "transformation problem" and your dissertation **many** years ago. Much has been written since on this subject. __ Well, I'm waiting for you to say something of substance. I have a general sense of what kind of literature you are coming from. So when you would come out with your thesis, we would see who would be "drowning". Or perhaps you could leave it to Jim Devine to fight your battle. Since both of you seem to belong to the same sect. _ Jerry: I will not "leave it to Jim Devine to fight [my] battle." The exchange yesterday suggested that there are points of disagreement between Jim's position on the law of value as it relates to the "societal factory" and commodity fetishism and my own. You might be surprised to hear that I **agree** with some of your criticism of the "societal factory" analogy. I do, however, agree with much of what Devine has written in a previous post concerning the role of the "transformation" in Marx's thought. Jim and I do not, though, belong to the "same sect" **or** to any sect at all (at least, I know that I don't belong to any sect). I will again suggest that we are not really getting anywhere in this exchange. For that reason, my suggestion concerning "first grade" literature is a practical one which would further meaningful communication, I would assert.
[PEN-L:5474] Re: keynes is not dead
Mike answering Evan Jones presented a stirring message for so early in his morning if i have my time zone calculations right. BTW, it was in the middle of the evening here and the middle class are probably just getting into the second round of soap operas for the night. The interesting question it seems to me is what makes Keynes an important figure as an object of perennial appropriation. The historical Keynes was rooted in time and place (and a pretty narrow scholastic environment set in a middle english marsh). Why are we stretching this guy out of proportion to make him relevant? My purpose was to find ways to fight the pernicious ideological argument that policy must encourage SAVINGS and flood the labor force with former welfare recipients to expand the SUPPLY of labor --- and that miraculously (automatically) through the magic of price (and interest rate) adjustments, the savings will translate into productive investment and the increased willingness of people to work will translate into jobs and we'll all grow happily ever after in our capitalist paradise. Now I now Marx refuted Say's law long before Hobson did (and Malthus suggested the lines of refutation even earlier), long before Keynes did. The point is, the Keynesian language and formulations (even the bastard American versions, though they leave out the most crucial step, the 'paradox of wage-cutting') are familiar and presented correctly can develop strong arguments against the pernicious crap I described above. I'm talking about how we as people who understand how the right wing has twisted the language of economics to the ends of capital can expose what's going on. That's my purpose. Onward _ soldiers!! (fill in the blank), Mike but is that the agenda for the right or the left mike? in a sense as i get older i start to think that the cut and thrust of argument is not at all relevant to the shape of decisions that get made either at a global, national or firm level. who are we going to expose it to? the govt? the cappos? the workers? how are we going to convince them when they are up to their ears in mortgage debt to tear up their lawnsand plant food (this week's theme from bill BTW crew!) and tell their bosses to get fucked that they are taking over the factory. there aren't all that many factories around these days. how are we to overcome the limits on redistribution that the capitalist class imposes (remember chile as the example of what cannot be done)? and what sort of jobs are we going to give the workers even if we convince the bosses to take on at wages that obviously affront their greed and the reality that they can go down to china or somewhere like that and get some forced labour to work on the same stuff? is this well understood keynesian rhetoric that you want to use to craft convincing arguments still relevant to the problems that we face now? is it just jobs that we want? i think not. we have to have jobs that don't create mindless waste. jobs that rebuild the environment not add to its demise. jobs that are not unstable and fractional in their demands on peoples "wholeness" idealistic crap, maybe. i can anticipate your response. but when do we on the extremes out here begin the revolt? well i think more and more it has to be on small scales. the unions have let us down. they have built central city offices to house the officials and forgot the troops (at least in OZ) while they wined and dined the cappos. all they ever fucking wanted anyway was to have an expense account and play at the same golf club. i think it has to be community based. start replanting the world. start creating small scale production units. put our middle class money into projects that are self generating and non-capitalist. subsidise through our own rents the development of the alternative. the cappos need mindless and mass consumption. the more we withdraw from that and redistribute our own resources the more quickly it fails. we cannot trust the govt to redistribute for us cause that is not their goal. anyway, just a continuance of my usual way out left themes. now if i had a TV guide i could see what station the soapie was on!! Kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:5472] Re: Joan Robinson quote
Colin Danby wrote: I omit most of an interesting post because I wanted to comment on one aside The problem is not that capitalists do hire labor, but that sometimes they don't -- one is reminded of Robinson's fabled remark that for a worker the only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is *not* being exploited by a capitalist (apocryphal? anyone have a cite?). I don't have a cite but it's not apochryphal. Joan Robinson made that comment orally a number of times --- both in conversation and in lectures. The first (and only specific) memory I have of that was in the context of discussing rural poverty in places like India, etc. --- where she said many people on the scene told her that the only real solution for massive rural poverty in overpopulated regions was "capitalist agriculture" --- and then she went on to state, "the only thing worse than being exploited, is not to be exploited!" If there are written cites, I don't know about them. Cheers, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5473] Re: keynes is not dead
I answer only one part of Evan Jones' post: Evan Jones - 448 - 3063 wrote: lost omitted The interesting question it seems to me is what makes Keynes an important figure as an object of perennial appropriation. The historical Keynes was rooted in time and place (and a pretty narrow scholastic environment set in a middle english marsh). Why are we stretching this guy out of proportion to make him relevant? My purpose was to find ways to fight the pernicious ideological argument that policy must encourage SAVINGS and flood the labor force with former welfare recipients to expand the SUPPLY of labor --- and that miraculously (automatically) through the magic of price (and interest rate) adjustments, the savings will translate into productive investment and the increased willingness of people to work will translate into jobs and we'll all grow happily ever after in our capitalist paradise. Now I now Marx refuted Say's law long before Hobson did (and Malthus suggested the lines of refutation even earlier), long before Keynes did. The point is, the Keynesian language and formulations (even the bastard American versions, though they leave out the most crucial step, the 'paradox of wage-cutting') are familiar and presented correctly can develop strong arguments against the pernicious crap I described above. I'm talking about how we as people who understand how the right wing has twisted the language of economics to the ends of capital can expose what's going on. That's my purpose. Onward _ soldiers!! (fill in the blank), Mike Evan Jones, Economics, Sydney University -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:5494] Women's contribution to the economy
The following is a call for papers that will be of particular interest to Canadian subscribers. However, we are also looking for comparative information and useful methodologies from other countries and would appreciate any advice and/or sources that could be of use or assistance. Please, feel free to pass this along to others! CALL FOR PAPERS Women's Contribution to the Canadian Economy The Canadian Women's Foundaiton is sponsoring a research project examining women's role in economic activity and economic development in Canada. Proposals for submissions are invited addressing the following research questions: 1. What does the Canadian economy need to succeed in the next ten years, and how do the current and potential contributions of women relate to these factors for success? 2. What needs to be in place in our society to support a healthy economy and how does the paid and unpaid work of women relate to these supports? 3. What would be the impact on the Canadian economy if women had equality? The focus of the project will be on identifying what the results would be of removing current barriers to the full economic participation of women and the full valuing of women's current and potential economic contribution. Contributors will have the opportunity to participate in a one day symposium. Support to assist with travel costs will be available. Results of the project will be published in an edited volume. Contributors are invited to address the broad range of women's paid and unpaid current and potential contributions to a healthy Canadian economy in areas including, but not limited to: - entrepreneurship among women, including jobs created, taxes paid, revenues generated, community impacts; - direct and indirect contributions of women's labour market activity; - human resource capacity of girls and womn regarding current and emerging areas or skill shortage; - value and significance of unpaid work in the home and in the broader community; - the relationship between social, economic and environmental well-being, including costs and benefits associated with social, economic and environmental equity. The Canadian Women's Foundation was incorporated as a public charity in 1989. Its mission is to raise and grant funds to charitable projects that help girls and women across Canada to achieve greater self-reliance and economic independence. CWF is dedicated to long term systematic change that will bring about the equality of women and girls in Canada. Interested contributors should submit a brief (one page) proposal including a title and abstract for the proposed paper and a short biography of the author(s). ALL PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED by JUNE 30, 1995 AT THE LATEST. Contributors will be contacted after that time to identify a date for the symposium. Final versions of all papers should be submitted by September 15, 1995. PLEASE DIRECT INQUIRIES AND SEND PROPOSALS TO: Susan Wismer Assistant Professor, Department of Environment and Resource Studies University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. N2L 3G1 tel: 519 888-4567 x5795 fax: 519 746-0292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5496] the joy of sects.
I erased Jerry's missive by mistake and was just recently able to retrieve it via gopher. Ajit wrote: Or perhaps you could leave it to Jim Devine to fight your battle. Since both of you seem to belong to the same sect. Jerry replied: Jim and I do not, though, belong to the "same sect" **or** to any sect at all (at least, I know that I don't belong to any sect). I do belong to a sect, the sect of those who think that Ajit's style of _ad hominem_ argumentation is a poor substitute for reason. BTW, I should be kicked out of the sect for having erased Jerry's message. sincerely, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects." -- K. Marx
[PEN-L:5497] Re: Joan Robinson quote
I once told Stiglitz about how both Ricardo and Smith had anticipated the Stiglitz/Weiss paper. He was pleasantly surprised. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5498] Re: Surpluses and LTV
in reply to my query about Rod's seven point plan for simplifying the LTV, where i had trouble with point 4 about the necessity to have parasites prior to surplus. i said in a parasite free world the consumption workers have to make a surplus to feed the capital goods workers. he replied that i was think micro not macro. not at all is my reply. unless you are talking about a world where call machines have infinite lives, then even in a static world with some positive depreciation, the economy overall has to produce a surplus over its current consumption. i was just pointing out how this occurs. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215065 Fax: +61 49 215065 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:5499]
(this was sent only to Ajit, by mistake.)
Ajit writes: I think your interpretation of value is incorrect.
You don't seem to make the difference between "value" and "market
prices" -- a difference quite important to Marx's theory. "Value" is
defined at the point where there is no realization problem.
I do make that distinction. The quote I had about the market not
being able to "stomach" of the product of labor comes from p. 107 of
the International Publ. edition of vol. I. He writes: "The effect is
the same as if each individual weaver had expended more labor-time
upon his product than is socially necessary." He's talking about
values, not prices, though under simple commodity production (SCP).
After all, what is value if it isn't _socially necessary_ abstract
labor time?
In most of vol. I, however, Marx assumed that there were no
realization problems. That's because his emphasis is on production,
which seems the right approach to me, since value can't be realized
until it's been produced (value isn't _created_ in circulation and
if it can be _destroyed_, it doesn't undermine his analysis). But
his general emphasis is on the social determination of value, not
its physical nature.
Now it's possible that the translation I used was wrong or that Marx
was confused. So here's another example of the social determination
of value: the value of a single item depends not on the labor-time
that was actually "embodied" in it by the worker who produced it
("individual value"), but by the social average of all the workers
who produced that kind of commodity. There's also "moral
depreciation," of course, where the value of a durable product
depends on how much labor it takes to produce it _today_ rather than
in the past.
Whenever supply and demand (and they are not demand and supply
schedules) do not match, market prices diverge from value.
You mean "deviate from prices of production (POPs)," don't you,
unless you're talking only about SCP?
The "law of value" basically refers to the tendency of the market
prices to move toward the value, as if value was the gravitational
point just like the law of gravitation.
That's not my interpretation, but where did Marx define "the law of
value"? (Again, it should be prices moving toward POPs, no?)
Let me ask you a question, to "push" you to think positively
rather than always in negative terms on this issue. Can you say that
a commodity X has L hrs. of labour as its value? And if you can,
then how do you arrive at this L?
A commodity X can have L hours of labor as its value if (1) that
commodity can be separated from other commodities rather than being
part of a joint product or affected in a major way by externalities;
(2) workers of socially-average skill do L hours of labor it under
socially average conditions; and (3) the market is large enough to
"stomach" what they produce.
I don't "arrive" at this L. It's something that _happens_. An
observer can get an _estimate_ of how much labor is spent in
producing X by examining the data.
In reference to the critiques of neo-Ricardianism in CAPITAL
CLASS, Ajit writes They were written hurredly and are not good
research papers. They rely too much on the first chapter of
*Capital*1, which of course deals with the simple commodity
production--which I thought in your opinion was the "static model"
and not the representative of capitalist economy etc., etc.
I'll let the authors defend their own work, especially since this
broadside (and much of what Ajit says elsewhere about their work) is
too broad to have any content.
Despite their static nature, the first three chapters of vol. I of
CAPITAL are quite relevant, since it defines value in
commodity-producing society in general (and not just SCP).
Capitalism is one form of commodity-producing society, so one can
learn about it by first studying commodity-producing society in
general.
Anyway, I don't reject static pictures of society _altogether_;
rather, I reject "transformation problem" stories which are
_restricted to_ static examples (which is the usual case in this
sorry literature). A reasonable "transformation problem" solution
would include the static equal-profit-rate equilibrium as a special
case.
And their anti-neoRicardianism is rooted in their interpretation
of Marx as a scarcity theorist veiled in the Marxist jargon such as
"allocation of social labour" instead of allocation of resources
with a sprinkle of "dialectical method" and "commodity fetishism".
Despite the extremely defensive tone of this remark, it's possible
to see a major difference between Ajit and myself, one which is so
complicated that I'm afraid that we'll have to simply agree to
disagree.
As I understand his view, Ajit sees the "scarcity problematic" (with
an emphasis on choice, as with Smith and the neoclassicals) in the
early part of vol. I of CAPITAL, followed by Marx's emphasis on the
"surplus problematic" in the rest
