Greetings Economists,
CB (Charles Brown) writes,
(first),
..."Math, grammar and logic are all sets of rules on how to use symbols."...
then CB writes,
..."logic is mathematical and linguistic, but I am curious on the essential
distinction between linguistics and mathematics implie
Math, grammar and logic are all sets of rules on how to use symbols.
CB
by Devine, James
[was: RE: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation]
Charles writes:
>CB: I want to go dialectical on y'all and say logic is mathematical and
linguistic, but I am curious on the e
[was: RE: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation]
Charles writes:
>CB: I want to go dialectical on y'all and say logic is mathematical and
linguistic, but I am curious on the essential distinction between
linguistics and mathematics implied here.<
it's possible
[A lesson worthwhile for those engaged in political economy-ecology. From
the Ecological Society of America...]
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Foley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Eco-Math
> W
September 25, 2002
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Paying the Bills in Brazil:
Does the IMF's Math Add Up?
By Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker
Executive Summary (full paper is at www.cepr.net)
The IMF has recently approved a $30 billion loan
to Brazil, with the idea that the gover
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The
> mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over
> the top with Tom. please stop.
Could you please explain what you mean by "it seems that Roger is going over the
Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The
mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over
the top with Tom. please stop.
Timework Web wrote:
> I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
> called me provoca
>I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
>called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not
>welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l
>won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it
>for t
Max, you butterfly, you. I would agree that the outcome in the example you
give seems "less unappealing". That is perhaps because we can imagine what
it is like to have an income of $10,000 and what it would feel like to get
a $1000 boost. We can also imagine how unimportant a $2000 windfall might
Over on LBO they're arguing about who is
more psychotic. I think both sides are
winning. So this debate compares
well. I would be sorry to see either TW
or RO go. Neither of them has called me
an insect yet.
On the substance of the matter . . . TW said:
Max has an income of $100. Ro
Tom, don't go!
Behind the original question I posed about "progressive taxation" was a
motive. In preparation for someday attacking the analysis that is going to
defend the California de-regulation as a form of "progressive taxation." I
wanted to check to see if there was any basis for cl
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans
called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not
welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l
won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it
for the gr
Roger Odisio wrote,
> mean between $10,000 and $15,000--the last bit of bullshit you used to
> avoid addressing which tax system I posited was more progressive.)
Getting testy now, are we?
Max has an income of $100. Roger has an income of $10. I give Max $2
Tom Walker:
> I sense a lot of associative confusion on the issue of
> "progressive" taxation. There are two connotations of progressive that are
> being mixed up here. There is also an intimate historical connection
> between the uses of the two connotations. One meaning of progressive is
> the
Tom Walker:
> Roger Odisio wrote,
>
> > An electricity price reduction is the same thing as a lump sum rebate in
> > this context; each has the same effect on disposable income.
>
> No. The lump-sum rebate in your example was without regard to levels of
> consumption. The poor consumer received t
I sense a lot of associative confusion on the issue of
"progressive" taxation. There are two connotations of progressive that are
being mixed up here. There is also an intimate historical connection
between the uses of the two connotations. One meaning of progressive is
the arithmetic one in which
y recollection, Gene did not ask if the reduction would be
"progressive as to income" (whatever that means). He asked whether it
would be like a progressive taxation.
> I said yes, and I see you agree. Case closed?
See my next message, "Fuck the math, do the history."
Tricky Devil
Tom Walker wrote:
> Roger Odisio wrote,
>
> > The clearest way to see the effect . . .
>
> The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
> a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
> lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the strict
Roger Odisio wrote,
> The clearest way to see the effect . . .
The key word here is "effect". The illustration you gave, Roger, is not of
a flat-rate reduction but of a lump-sum rebate. Under the circumstances, a
lump-sum rebate _would_ be progressive in the
Max Sawicky wrote,
> But suppose it is the ratio of net of tax income?
> In Walker's example, the ratio changes from
> (9/8)*(rich inc/poor inc) to (91/82) * (rich/poor).
> The latter is smaller, which could be taken to
> mean "more" progressivity. Or less inequality.
The dictionary definition
Tom Walker wrote:
> I don't quarrel with the definition, only with applying the term to
> a situation where it doesn't apply. Be humble. Do the math.
>
> > "Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive
> > income tax."
>
> Th
Roger Odisio wrote,
> By my reading, only a couple posts by Tom Walker seem to quarrel with
> it. (the definition of progressivity)
I don't quarrel with the definition, only with applying the term to
a situation where it doesn't apply. Be humble. Do the math.
>>>>&
Roger Odisio wrote,
> By my reading, only a couple posts by Tom Walker seem to quarrel with
> it. (the definition of progressivity)
I don't quarrel with the definition, only with applying the term to
a situation where it doesn't apply. Be humble. Do the math.
> "I
It may not be immediately clear to everyone why taking a ratio of a ratio
is not an acceptable way of assessing the "progressivity" of a rate
change. So let me give another example:
Sometimes governments announce tax or spending changes relative to a
previously projected change. Thus, the diminut
I thought this was amusing given the recent flare ups about academacism.
This criticism( by one of the finest philosophers in the business) can be
extended to much of what goes on in academic economics.
from *Vaulting Ambition. Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature* by
Philip Kitcher. MIT. 1
>,
whitney howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marianne Brun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wally Goldfrank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Albert J Bergesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pat Lauderdale <[EMAIL PROTE
James Devine wrote:
>
> what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the
> "contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"?
>
> >neoclassical economists are unable to overcome the lesser epistemologic
> obstacle.<
>
> what obstacle? how do they overcome it?
>
> As f
Romain Kroes writes: >... because of a paralyzing devoutness, Marxists
never tried, too, to go beyond the conceptual contradiction against which
Marx came up. <
what specific conceptual contradiction are you talking about? the
"contradiction" of the so-called "transformation problem"?
>neoclass
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>
> Therefore, the mystification of mathematics in modern economics can be
> compared to cargo cults that spread on some Pacific isalands after World War
> II. The Americans established air bases on those islands, and to buy the
> aborigines' loyalty, they showered t
tuatio >>
Bob,
Read the stuff on the working day - hardly a concern with LR dynamics!
Also, my sister was a math major at Queens College in the early 1970's. On
the first day of a Differential Calculus class, the prof turned to my sister
(and the 3 other female students) and said, "w
In a 1941 letter to J.M. Clark, Keynes wrote:
"As you will have gathered the other evening, I agree with what you say
about the danger of a 'school,' even when it is one's own. There is great
danger in quantitative forecasts which are based exclusively on statistics
relating to conditions by no
Jay Hecht wrote:
"In fact, it was quite evident that the hospital practice at this
particular Big 6 succeeded because the women supplanted the incompetent
males!"
This can be explained in a simple Becker (neoclassical) manner: Prior to
the hiring of women, incompletent males were hired. Howev
At 02:56 AM 7/23/97 -0700, you wrote:
>It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics
>in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to
>tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual
>basis in economics, so much so that "the ba
It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics
in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to
tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual
basis in economics, so much so that "the back of the head" is nothing
but a rough sub
result of a model
>>that starts with the assumption that we don't have to worry about power (or
>>attempts to change the rules of the game)? If you had a model that did
>>start by putting power at the center, why couldn't you use math to talk
>>about variable degr
On Tue, 20 Jun 95 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Cockshott) said:
>John asks
>
>All of the above is true but seems to miss the point of the Okishio
Theorem.
>That is, Okishio points out that rattional capitalists make investments to
>increase their rates of profit or, at least, t
Curtiss
---
sheds some light on the subject. The three greatest mathe-
maticians of all time are generally considered to be Archimedes,
Newton and Gauss. The crown probably belongs to Newton although
he insisted that he "stood on the shoulders of giants" -- which
is correct. It is said that
On Wed, 21 Jun 1995, Trond Andresen wrote:
> Tavis Barr says:
>
> > ..if there is no tendency of the profit rate to fall, why
> > has it been on a downward trend for the last 25 years or so?
>
> First: Are economists in agreement on this? I have economist
> acquaintances who say otherwise.
Tavis Barr says:
> ..if there is no tendency of the profit rate to fall, why
> has it been on a downward trend for the last 25 years or so?
First: Are economists in agreement on this? I have economist
acquaintances who say otherwise. Just asking.
Secondly: If this rate really has been falling
John L Gulick writes:
>>Can't the rate of profit also fall when technical and
organizational changes which increase surplus value extraction
meet various "natural limits to growth" ?
For example, socio-technical change in intermodal shipping --
containerization, concentration of capital,
This was Ricardo's argument for a declining rate of profit. Marx wanted
to develop an argument that was internal to his theory of capitalist
dynamics, i.e., not imposed outside the system. Not that Ricardo was
wrong just that his argument was endogenous. David Levine discusses this
in one of h
Can't the rate of profit also fall when technical and organizational
changes which increase surplus value extraction meet various "natural
limits to growth" ? I adamantly am not talking a Club of Rome discourse
here, merely referring to the conditioning of "revolutions in value
production" by the
Marx's point pretty well: I leave it to the
reader :) :) to show that in the break-even case (i.e., the same profit
rate in the two scenarios), the firm that stays with the higher-MC
technology while the other one switches will get really screwed. I
haven't done the math but it seems pr
Curtis Moore's piece on mathematics was one the most informative and the best
pieces I have read on pen-l. Could we have more of this please!
Cheers, ajit sinha
Math & Language 2.
The controversy between Newton and Leibniz over the
"invention" of the calculus is interesting in this regard and
sheds some light on the subject. The three greatest mathe-
maticians of all time are generally considered to be Archimedes,
Newton and Gau
The discussion of whether the falling rate of profit is true
under different assumptions of wage rates seems to me beside
the point. What one should be looking at is not micro
phenomena like that but macro dynamics. A sufficient condition
for the rate of profit to have a declining upper bound, is
Gil,
Other than as an exercise in gaining clarification concerning Marx's
terminology and thus in extending his efforts, how is the Okishio Theorem
relevant or "useful." Note that for Okishio not only is the real wage
constant but all prices used in determining whether or not the rate of
pro
Jim writes:
> In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math,
> Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of
> Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was
> inconsistent with those premises before Oki
In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math,
Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of
Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was
inconsistent with those premises before Okishio's proof?"
I think thi
49 matches
Mail list logo
