SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Barkley Rosser)
Date:
Mon Jan 8 10:03:46 2007
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
[A combintation of a list software upgrade and lack of easy 
web access at the ASSA meetings caused the delay in distributing
messages to this list. Sorry about that. HB]


James C.W. Ahiakpor,

Well, I know I promised not to say anything further, but
you managed to be sufficiently personally insulting as
well as just plain wrong, that I am breaking my promise
(which I now reissue, about to go out the door to the 
meetings in Chicago where I hope to see some of you).

a)  I have read Keynes's 1923 tract.
b)  I read your 1990 paper when it first came out and
am no more impressed with its arguments today than 
I was then, although you keep repeating them here.

Basically Darity and Young pretty much took you apart.
Your argument depends on a peculiar interpretation of
"the classical model," ignoring contradictions within
that model and also ignoring Keynes's own critiques of it.
Also, citing works by Steven Kates, who likes to dredge
up questionable quotes about Keynes supposedly by
Hayek for this list, is not exactly impressive either.

As regards capital, I shall simply quote something I
doubt that you have read:

"What really is capital and what does it mean for value,
growth, and distribution?  Is it a pile of produced means
of production?  It is it dated labor?  Is it waiting?  Is it
roundaboutness?  Is it an accumulated pile of finance?
Is it a social relation?  Is it an independent source of
value?  The answers to these questions are probably
matters of belief."

Barkley Rosser


ATOM RSS1 RSS2