Rakesh wrote:
Charles, here's Jim D's underconsumptionism:
I think it's wrong to call my views underconsumptionism, since I don't
fit with Bleaney's definition, which is based on a serious survey of the
history of economic thought. Also, underconsumptionist is an epithet used
too often by the
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
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 need
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
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
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
underconsumption
