Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jim d's underconsumptionism

2001-10-24 Thread Rakesh Bhandari
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I don't try to be controversial as much as make clear the laws of motion of > the system. Jim, the point is that if a crisis results from underconsumption as a result of disproportionality, it can be overcome in a different way than an underconsumpt

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: jim d's underconsumptionism

2001-10-24 Thread Jim Devine
Rakesh wrote: >crisis can result from failure to realize surplus value or shortage of >surplus >value in the production process. don't disagree--how could i? I don't try to be controversial as much as make clear the laws of motion of the system. >i don't >understand your interpretation of the

Re: Re: Re: Re: jim d's underconsumptionism

2001-10-24 Thread Rakesh Bhandari
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > At 12:45 PM 10/24/01 -0700, you wrote: > >now, now Jim, you may want to call your theory overaccumulation but it is > >precisely the kind of overaccumulation that would lead in Sweezy's estimation > >to underconsumption. > > The reason why my theory is not

Re: Re: Re: jim d's underconsumptionism

2001-10-24 Thread Jim Devine
At 12:45 PM 10/24/01 -0700, you wrote: >now, now Jim, you may want to call your theory overaccumulation but it is >precisely the kind of overaccumulation that would lead in Sweezy's estimation >to underconsumption. The reason why my theory is not "underconsumptionist" is that overaccumulation ne

Re: Re: jim d's underconsumptionism

2001-10-24 Thread Rakesh Bhandari
now, now Jim, you may want to call your theory overaccumulation but it is precisely the kind of overaccumulation that would lead in Sweezy's estimation to underconsumption. In fact you underline this underconsumption consequence yourself, so I am not putting words in your mouth. And whether yo