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:
michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:40:02 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (80 lines)
Savran's article initially sparked my question.  I should have known
that you would be on top of this.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Nicholas Theocarakis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> See Sungur Savran "Neo-Ricardianism", p. 253 in Ben Fine & Alfredo
> Saad-Filho (eds) [with the assistance of Marc Boffo] The Elgar Companion to
> Marxist Economics, 2012, where he states that "even the doyen of
> neoclassical economics, Paul Samuelson, felt compelled to enunciate famously
> 'We are all Sraffians now'", but no reference to the famous enunciation is
> given.
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alain Alcouffe
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Le 03/06/2012 09:20, M.E.G.M.Rol a écrit :
>>
>> As to Michael's point 1: Should it not be 'Sraffans'?
>>
>> I have seen it quoted too, once, but I do not recall when or where. Nor
>> what he wanted to say with it.
>>
>> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last section
>> of his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983, because, there,
>> Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of Marx's assessment of the
>> development of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa's
>> neokeynesianism is compared with von Böhm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation
>> in anti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx
>> input-output systems' and, although it is part of the mathematical appendix,
>> it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the schools of thought.
>> (Samuelson warns not to approach the merit of economic schools
>> ideologically but merely follow the logic of the economics involved. This is
>> indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us Sraff(i)ans? )
>>
>> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have
>> written it here.
>> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it was
>> after 1983.
>>
>> Menno Rol.
>>
>> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Did Samuelson ever  say "We are all Sraffians Now"?  I have my
>> doubts but have seen it quoted.
>> 2. Where can I learn what Samuelson and Solow did at MIT's Rad Lab?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Perelman
>>
>>
>>
>> I found this blog
>> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.fr/2006/08/some-of-samuelson-on-subject-of-sraffa.html
>> which sustains if not the words themselves at least the general idea
>> I have not direct access but you could check
>>
>> Samuelson, P. A. (1987). “Sraffian Economics” in The New Palgrave: A
>> Dictionary of Economics (edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P.
>> Newman),London: Macmillan
>> Samuelson, P. A. (2001). “A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm’s Capital Theory:
>> Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian Mainstream Capital Theory”,
>> Journal of the History of Economic Thought, V. 23, N. 3: 301-317
>>
>> Please note that PAS did spell it Sraffian ..
>
>



-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929

530 898 5321
fax 530 898 5901
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2