Barkley is right, but perhaps we are Sraffians because we are Sraffans and Keynesians at the same time.
Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 2:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
Responding to Alan Freeman's father's story about Schumpeter and Goodwin, I have heard the same story told by Vela Velupillai, whom Duncan Foley has probably accurately identified as being the world's leading expert on Goodwin's intellectual life at this time.
Oh, and probably it should be "Sraffans," but intellectual path dependence has set in, so it will continue to be "Sraffians," not to mention that "Sraffans" just sounds weird.
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Freeman
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 11:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
According to my father, Goodwin struck a deal with Schumpeter in which he undertook to teach Schumpeter math, if Schumpeter taught him economics. This is an anecdotal story though confirmation would be interesting. I can see no evidence of the exchange in Schumpeter's work, but I get the impression that Schumpeter was more inclined towards teaching than learning.
A
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of michael perelman
Sent: June-03-12 6:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
Despite his association with the Econometric Society, Schumpeter did not uses models and theorems; besides, Samuelson's work was not amenable to models and theorems.
Richard Goodwin, another modeler was also very close with Schumpeter.
I cannot see how Samuelson could benefit much from Schumpeter's work, even if he appreciated it intellectually.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Alan Freeman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have a further question about Samuelson, in connection with an
> article I am writing. This deals with Schumpeter's influence on
> economists. My perhaps superficial reading of a selection of some 50
> of Samuelson's best-known articles yields surprisingly few references
> to
Schumpeter.
>
>
>
> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to
> a 'master'. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any
> rounded assessment of Schumpeter's contribution to economic theory. I
> have found no assessment that compares, for example, with his extended
dismissal of Marx.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic attempt
> to consider Schumpeter's ideas - particularly on Business Cycles, but
> also on technology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history of
> thought or the large number of other areas in which Schumpeter
> considered he had something to say?
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of M.E.G.M.Rol
> Sent: June-03-12 2:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929
530 898 5321
fax 530 898 5901
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
|
