http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001449.html
A Flicker Away From a Blackout
Canadian Engineers Say Rare Glitch Suggests Ongoing Threat to Power Grid
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; A15
TORONTO -- At 4:15 p.m. on May
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Nitzan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some Marxists relegate the explanation of such quantitative phenomena to
bourgeois economists who do not grasp the qualitative essence of
capitalism. Others think that these processes are important, but tend to
treat them as
Eubulides:
Yawn.
Dreamin' again
Jonathan Nitzan wrote:
Question: if we abandon
value, dont we need
an alternative theory to understand the way things
are? (or does the
end of value make capitalism patternless?)
Am I glad you asked that question, because it leads
right into the point I had in mind but forgot to
address.
Outstanding book. Excellent selection, Patrick.
Patrick Bond wrote:
So, I studied with David Harvey and my bias is not only towards
bringing in qualitative aspects of capital/labour power relations, as
well as the capitalist/non-capitalist relationship (especially
accumulation by dispossession).
I'll take Cohen over KM on 20th century property rights and the legal
construction of the public/private binary any day of the week. Btw, at one
time Cohen *was* a Marxist...
Ian
^^
CB: You can have him.
Was a Marxist ? Sounds like he was going out of the world backwards.
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Brown
CB: You can have him.
Was a Marxist ? Sounds like he was going out of the world backwards.
-
Yawn.
^^^
Exchange with Tom Walker
^^^
TW:
Conversely, I would ask how can we use an understanding of the changes
in differential accumulation to explain why working people don't rise up
in revolt against such evidently oligarchic and antisocial
Jonathan Nitzan wrote:
Differential accumulation works partly through mass
persuasion and the
use of force.
If that's the best it can do, it's an elephant
labouring to give birth to a mouse. We could ask,
then, what's persuasion?; what's force? but let's not
go there until we give value
Exchange with Tom Walker:
TW:
So I can see where value theory or value may seem to be inoperative
concepts. They no longer attach themselves to a formidable portion of
the accumulation processValue is produced over here and over here
and here and capital is accumulated over there and over
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Brown
State power is backed up by military and police forces which are quite
earthly ( See Engels on the history of force). The allocation of resources
can be theorized based on the idea of state power
[was: power]
It's true, as LP says, that in many ways, Marxian value theory is akin to
Eng-Lit scholars' discussions of Jane Austen, i.e., irrelevant. However, that's
only if the discussion is totally divorced from empirical research and
practical issues, as with the standard transformation
I think that Jim's statement about value theory is excellent.
Devine, James wrote:
I think that value theory is crucial if political economists want to avoid the
Scylla of empiricism and the Charybdis of neoclassical theory. We need some
kind of abstract theory to avoid simply describing the
/
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
michael perelman
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:24 PM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power
The problem with Jim's e-bay solution has to do with the timing. I
am
doing a job with a new computer
@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power and value
I think that Jim's statement about value theory is excellent.
Devine, James wrote:
I think that value theory is crucial if political economists want
to avoid the Scylla of empiricism and the Charybdis of neoclassical
theory. We need some
: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:25 AM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power and value
I think that Jim's statement about value theory is excellent.
Devine, James wrote:
I think that value theory is crucial if political economists want
to avoid the Scylla of empiricism
I don't know.
Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:47 PM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power
-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
michael perelman
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:25 AM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power and value
I think that Jim's statement about value theory is excellent.
Devine, James wrote:
I think that value theory
We can make both as if assumptions, but I think they are of a
different type.
It seems to me that capitalists cannot convert values to prices, not
even as if, unless values do exist. By contrast, capitalists can, at
least in their own mind, translate uncertainty into a risk premium. In
fact, they
Michael Perelman asks: Jim, how would you calculate the reproduction cost of a
2 year old
computer, even in theory?
try selling it on e-Bay! Then, following Keynes' method, state the price in
wage-units. However, that would only indicate its exchange-value
(labor-commanded).
You could
Let me paraphrase Jim Devine in neoclassical terms (find the differences):
try selling it on e-Bay! Then, following Keynes' method, state the
price in wage-units. However, that would only indicate its
exchange-value (in terms of marginal utility/marginal productivity
commanded). You could also
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Jonathan Nitzan
Sent: Mon 1/17/2005 12:47 PM
To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] power
Let me paraphrase Jim Devine in neoclassical terms (find
Jonathan writes:
Let me paraphrase Jim Devine in neoclassical terms (find the differences):
try selling it [an old PC] on e-Bay! Then, following Keynes' method, state the
price in wage-units. However, that would only indicate its
exchange-value (in terms of marginal utility/marginal productivity
What I'm trying to say, Jim, is that to observe prices and to conclude
from these observations about theoretical values and theoretical
utility/productivity is to go in the wrong direction. I always thought
that theory should explain the world, not the other way around.
Jonathan Nitzan
Jonathan Nitzan wrote:
What I'm trying to say, Jim, is that to observe prices and to conclude
from these observations about theoretical values and theoretical
utility/productivity is to go in the wrong direction. I always thought
that theory should explain the world, not the other way around.
On Jan 17, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Eubulides wrote:
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carrol
Cox
Asking serious theory to explain prices is like asking quantum
mechanics
to give you the correct oven temperature for roast lamb.
Carrol
---
Someone finally said it
Ralph
Power doesn't explain anything, it merely gives a
(provisional) name to the historically generated relationships that need
to be explained. It's just another name for Smith's Invisible Hand,
which was another name for the god of the deists. In other words, we are
The problem with Jim's e-bay solution has to do with the timing. I am
doing a job with a new computer this year. The formal algebraic theory
says that I depreciate x from the computer today to account for the
value transferred to the commodity. To make the correct calculation, I
would need to
Jonathan Nitzan says he and Bichler do not treat risk
as an 'objective' category rather, they assume that
investors... behave as if the objective probability
distribution of outcomes exists and is knowable. By
the same token, even if we agree with NB that
commodities do NOT have a definite
this is the Cambridge Capital Controversy in disguised form. You can't get
any general equilibrium theory of prices off the ground unless you are
either prepared to take a rate of profit as given, or take a schedule of
prices of capital goods as given. Otherwise, you have no numeraire with
which
Not really. The Cambridge Capital Controversy has to do with a static model in
which
different rates of profit/wage rates change relative prices.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:44:39PM -, Daniel Davies wrote:
this is the Cambridge Capital Controversy in disguised form. You can't get
any
Asking serious theory to explain prices is like asking quantum
mechanics
to give you the correct oven temperature for roast lamb.
Carrol
---
Bad analogy.
Ian
I agree with Ian.
Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
Jonathan says: to observe prices and to conclude from these
observations about theoretical values and theoretical
utility/productivity is to go in the wrong direction. I always thought
that theory should explain the world, not the other way around.
Gosh, I should have made this clear: I think
Laws of Motion:
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The rate of profit is
computed in prices. The reasons for the tendency derive from values.
The tendency of capitalism to generate repeated profitability crises.
Profitability is measured in prices. The crises are explained in terms
of
Carrol Cox wrote:
I don't think anyone has produced an acceptable definition of power. Power
doesn't explain anything, it merely gives a (provisional) name to the
historically generated relationships that need to be explained. It's just
another name for Smith's Invisible Hand, which was another
Thanks for the help, I was looking for it incorrectly (and this is only one
of many lacunae I have had in knowing valuable literature, so no one
should think that means the work is not known). In fact, far from a secret
book, actually I have now found it in a number of libraries, for sale, etc
Jim, how would you calculate the reproduction cost of a 2 year old
computer, even in theory? Yes, you are correct that you can use the
theory even without measurment.
Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes: ... we have no way of calculating the abstract labor
values of already installed
Yes with respect to the first part. However, I would have thought that the question of value transfers and depreciation is a measurement question that can be adjusted under more experimental like conditions to approximate the facts.
As to prices causing crisis, the answer is no. Socialist
Charles, you are exactly right. In my book on Marx's theories of crises, I
tried to make
the same point. In a world in which prices bear some resemblance to embodied
abstract
labor, the process of capitalist accumulation has a degree of rationality.
Once you let
what Jonathan calls power and
Michael P writes:
Charles, you are exactly right. In my book on Marx's theories of crises,
I tried to make
the same point..
I really ought to know this, but could you give a reference for that
book? TIA.
Paul
It is a secret book that nobody has read:
_Karl Marx's Crises Theory: Labor, Scarcity and Fictitious Capital_ (New
York: Praeger, 1987).
Paul wrote:
Michael P writes:
Charles, you are exactly right. In my book on Marx's theories of crises,
I tried to make
the same point..
I really ought to
Two observations. 1. I have mentioned here several times
that we have no way of calculating the abstract labor values of already installed
constant capital unless we have a scientific means of measuring depreciation.
2. I got this note from Mike Griffn. It is a good example of the
I haven't had enough time to participate in -- or even read -- the
discussion with Jonathan Nitzan. So I've probably missed something.
But I think that the word power is one of those words that usually
requires some second word to clarify its meaning, as in market power
or political power.
Jim,
You've missed a lot. The concept of power is
_developed_ in Nitzan and Bichler's paper. There's
nothing vacuous about it. The clarifying
distinctions that you suggest are precisely what they
point out to be misleading. I think there are grounds
to question the comprehensiveness of their
44 matches
Mail list logo
