-
From: Ken Hanly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/9/02 6:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22680] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism
My fuzzy understanding of this is that the hard core of tautologies
nevertheless supports if the theory is progressive a research program
creating theories
role in peoples lives.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22358] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism
- Original Message -
From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL
I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian
institutionalist
with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
Must make for some interesting dinner parties
But I don't see how saying I'm an institutionalist gets you off the hook
here. That's not a value theory, and
I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist
with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point
Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of
underconsumptionism that Sweezy was
I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian
institutionalist
with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
In her essay on Marxian economics, Joan Robinson attempts to point
Marx's crisis theory in the direction of the kind of
underconsumptionism that Sweezy was
The measurement of the capital stock is in impossibility. Franklin Fisher
once worked up the requirements for aggregation. Can't be done!
The inability to calculate real depreciation presents another barrier.
I mentioned this in passing before in questioning how seriously we should
take
- Original Message -
From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22213] Re: Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical
Materialism
I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences
of
theories at the level
thanks. I needed that. -- Jim Devine
Ken Hanly writes:
I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences of
theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if the
labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If that
is so then in itself it
I don't understand this stuff about the observational consequences of
theories at the level of generality of the theory of value. What if the
labor theory of value is part of the central core of Marxism ? If that is so
then in itself it does not have any specific empirical implications
period.
