Anwar Shaikh's former student Jamee Moudud has a number of working papers over
the last two years out of the Levy Institute that are well worth looking at to
see how Shaikh's framework can be developed in various ways to address current
issues. Also, Shaikh has authored and co-authored a number o
Well, it is a theory, because it purports to explain the phenomena. Of course, demonic
possession is a theory too. That and $3.75 wil buy you a cuppa cappucino. --jks
In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:48:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<
Jim Devine wr
Yes, but this is exactly my point, too. We now have a rather large and growing
movement against the global trade/finance regime, and I'm sure it would seize on
work demonstrating the flaws in orthodox rationalizations. Left to their
druthers, economists would prefer to ignore it, but they might
At 04:31 PM 10/01/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim (or anyone else), if I'm wrong and you can make Shaikh's approach work in
>the context of a modern, fully-specified trade-and-finance model, do
>it! I can
>guarantee that it would have a huge impact.
I'm not the one to do this. And I'm not convinced
I wrote that:
> comparative advantage does not say that both countries gain. It says
> that neither country loses. It also doesn't say _who_ in each country
> gains. If the Honduran banana industry is owned by United Brands (né
> United Fruit), Honduras might gain from selling bananas to the U
It's been a very long time since I looked at Shaikh, but I recall being
unconvinced because it did not appear that his model could survive the
introduction of markets for foreign exchange. A truly serviceable model would
have this and markets for the assets purchased in the capital account. I do
Peter wrote:
>Where trade theory fails, however, is in its inability to incorporate open
>economy macro -- to establish comparative advantage in a world of
>endogenous unemployment, capital account flows, and
>fundamentals-disobeying forex markets. This is an open secret among
>international
The major deficiency seems to be its static nature.
Jim Devine wrote:
> a former colleague of mine ... objected because I referred to "the theory of
>
> comparative advantage" because "it's not a theory, it's simply true" (to
> paraphrase). (By the way, it _is_ a theory, since among other things
I shouldn't be doing this, because I'm in the middle of an urgent writing
project, but I have to respond briefly. Somehow, the notion has arisen that a
problem with neoclassical trade theory is that it assumes no mobility of
capital (or labor). This statement is true for Ricardo, but Ricardo is
En relación a [PEN-L:2552] Re: Brad speaks,
el 1 Oct 00, a las 11:43, Carrol Cox dijo:
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > a
> > former colleague of mine who objected because I referred to "the
> > theory of comparative advantage" because "it's
Jim Devine wrote:
> a
> former colleague of mine who objected because I referred to "the theory of
> comparative advantage" because "it's not a theory, it's simply true" (to
> paraphrase). (By the way, it _is_ a theory, since among other things it
> assumes zero mobility of labor and capital,
11 matches
Mail list logo
