Michael,
In response to your question on Samuelson and Sraffa, in his 1971
JEL history of economic thought article on Marx and the transformation
problem, Samuelson did write that we are now in the age of Leontieff
and Sraffa - see page 400 of the article (Vol. IX, No. 2: 399-443).
Best,
Spencer Pack
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:05 AM, SHOE automatic digest system
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are 10 messages totalling 1711 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Schumpeter: another Samuelson question (5)
> 2. I: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
> 3. Two Samuelson Questions (3)
> 4. FW: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:12:45 -0500
> From: Alan Freeman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: 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=20
>> article I am writing. This deals with Schumpeter=92s influence on=20
>> economists. My perhaps superficial reading of a selection of some 50=20
>> of Samuelson=92s best-known articles yields surprisingly few =
> references to
> Schumpeter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to =
>
>> a =91master=92. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any=20
>> rounded assessment of Schumpeter=92s contribution to economic theory. =
> I=20
>> 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=92s ideas =96 particularly on Business Cycles, =
> but=20
>> also on technology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history of =
>
>> thought or the large number of other areas in which Schumpeter=20
>> 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.=20
>> Nor what he wanted to say with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last=20
>> section of his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983,=20
>> because, there, Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of=20
>> Marx's assessment of the development of the rate of profit. Among=20
>> other things, Sraffa's neokeynesianism is compared with von=20
>> B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation in anti-marxist critique. The=20
>> section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx input-output systems' and,=20
>> 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=A0the merit of economic schools=20
>> ideologically but merely follow the logic of the economics involved.=20
>> This is indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us=20
>> Sraff(i)ans? )
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have=20
>> written it here.
>>
>> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it=20
>> was after 1983.
>>
>>
>>
>> Menno Rol.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Did Samuelson ever=A0 say "We are all Sraffians Now"?=A0 I have my=20
>> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:36:28 +0200
> From: Parisi Daniela Fernanda <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: I: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
> A: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: Parisi Daniela Fernanda
> Oggetto: R: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
> Daniela Parisi forwarded me the e-mail reproduced below. I try to answer the=
> question: " Did Samuelson ever say "We are all Sraffians Now"? I have my d=
> oubts but have seen it quoted.".
>
> I never read this quotation in a Samulson's writing. Maybe he told it somewh=
> ere, given the high opinion he had about Sraffa and some Sraffians. The quot=
> ation is referred in inverted commas in the entry "Neo-Ricardianism" written=
> by Subgur Savren for The Elgar Companion of Marxist Economics.
>
> In any case it should be interpreted in Samuelson's sense, i.e., in the sens=
> e that political economy is a continuous flow in evolution (from Questany, S=
> mith, Ricardo, Marx, to Walras, Debreu, Sraffa, Solow, etc.), characterized=
> by the same logical framework; a point highly disputable, ... but this was,=
> roughly, his opinion!
>
> Best regards,
> Enrico
>
>
> ***********************
> Enrico Bellino
> Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
> Largo Gemelli, 1
> 20123 - Milano
> (Italy)
>
> phone: +39 02 7234 2693 (or +39 02 7234 2918)
> fax: +39 02 7234 2406 (or +39 02 7234 2923)
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> web page: http://docenti.unicatt.it/ita/Enrico_Bellino
>
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Parisi Daniela Fernanda
> Inviato: domenica 3 giugno 2012 12:45
> A: Bellino Enrico
> Oggetto: I: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
> Caaro Enrico,
> nella mia lista =E8 venuta fuori oggi questo di Perelman e ho pensato che tu=
> puoi essere la persona buona per la prima domanda.
> Di salute non ho voglia di parlare,
> grazie, ciao,
> daniela
>
> ________________________________________
> Da: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] per conto di mich=
> ael perelman [ ]
> Inviato: sabato 2 giugno 2012 16.45
> A: [log in to unmask]
> Oggetto: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
> 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
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> ----------------------------- Messaggio istituzionale ----------------------=
> -----------------
>
> Grazie a un gesto semplice puoi sostenere l'Ateneo dei cattolici italiani ne=
> lla ricerca scientifica,
> nell'educazione dei giovani e nella cura dei malati del Policlinico "A. Geme=
> lli".
> Sottoscrivi il 5 per mille a favore dell'Universit=E0 Cattolica (CF 02133120=
> 150)
> Info: http://www.unicatt.it/5permille
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:31:44 +0300
> From: Nicholas Theocarakis <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Two Samuelson Questions
>
> --e89a8f6471b11e96c704c1a58ed9
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> 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]
> r
>> wrote:
>
>> Le 03/06/2012 09:20, M.E.G.M.Rol a =E9crit :
>>
>> 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 t=
> he
>> development of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa's
>> neokeynesianism is compared with von B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientat=
> ion
>> 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]><michael.per=
> [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). =93Sraffian Economics=94 in *The New Palgra=
> ve:
>> A Dictionary of Economics* (edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P.
>> Newman),London: Macmillan
>> - Samuelson, P. A. (2001). =93A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm=92s Capital
>> Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian Mainstream Cap=
> ital
>> Theory=94, *Journal of the History of Economic Thought*, V. 23, N. 3:
>> 301-317
>>
>> Please note that PAS did spell it Sraff*i*an ..
>>
>
> --e89a8f6471b11e96c704c1a58ed9
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <div>See Sungur Savran "Neo-Ricardianism", p. 253 in Ben Fine &am=
> p; Alfredo Saad-Filho (eds) [with the assistance of Marc Boffo] <em>The Elg=
> ar Companion to Marxist Economics</em>, 2012, where he states that "ev=
> en the doyen of neoclassical economics, Paul Samuelson, felt compelled to e=
> nunciate famously 'We are all=A0Sraffians now'", but no refere=
> nce to the famous enunciation=A0is given.=A0</div>
>
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alain Alcouffe <=
> span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=
> =3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PA=
> DDING-LEFT:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
> <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">Le 03/06/2012 09:20, M.E.G.M.Rol =
> a =E9crit=A0:=20
> <div>
> <div class=3D"h5">
> <blockquote type=3D"cite">
> <div>As to Michael's point 1: Should it not be 'Sraffans'?=A0</=
> div>
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div>I have seen it quoted too, once, but I do not recall when or where. No=
> r what he wanted to say with it.</div>
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div>The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last sect=
> ion of his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983, because,=
> there, Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of Marx's asses=
> sment of the development of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa&=
> #39;s neokeynesianism is compared with von B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist =
> orientation in anti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-S=
> raffa-Marx input-output systems' and, although it is part of the mathem=
> atical appendix, it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the schools of thou=
> ght.</div>
>
> <div>(Samuelson warns not to approach=A0the merit of economic schools <em>i=
> deologically</em> but merely follow the <em>logic</em> of the economics inv=
> olved. This is indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us Sra=
> ff(i)ans? )</div>
>
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div>Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have =
> written it here. </div>
> <div>So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it =
> was after 1983.</div>
> <div>=A0</div>
> <div>Menno Rol.=A0</div>
> <div>=A0</div><span>On 03-06-12, <b>michael perelman </b><a href=3D"mailto:=
> [log in to unmask]" target=3D"_blank"><[log in to unmask]
> COM></a> wrote:</span>=20
> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT:#00f 1px solid;PADDING-LEFT:13px;MARGIN-LE=
> FT:0px" type=3D"cite">
> <div>1. Did Samuelson ever=A0 say "We are all Sraffians Now"?=A0 =
> I have my<br>doubts but have seen it quoted.<br>2. Where can I learn what S=
> amuelson and Solow did at MIT's Rad Lab?<br><br>-- <br>Michael Perelman=
> <br>
> </div></blockquote>
> <div>=A0</div></blockquote></div></div>I found this blog <a href=3D"http://=
> robertvienneau.blogspot.fr/2006/08/some-of-samuelson-on-subject-of-sraffa.h=
> tml" target=3D"_blank">http://robertvienneau.blogspot.fr/2006/08/some-of-sa=
> muelson-on-subject-of-sraffa.html</a><br>
> which sustains if not the words themselves at least the general idea<br>I h=
> ave not direct access but you could check <br><br>
> <ul>
> <li>Samuelson, P. A. (1987). =93Sraffian Economics=94 in <i>The New Palgrav=
> e: A Dictionary of Economics</i> (edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. =
> Newman),London: Macmillan</li>
> <li>Samuelson, P. A. (2001). =93A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm=92s Capital Th=
> eory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian Mainstream Capital Th=
> eory=94, <i>Journal of the History of Economic Thought</i>, V. 23, N. 3: 30=
> 1-317</li>
> </ul>Please note that PAS did spell it Sraff<big><u>i</u></big>an .. <br></=
> div></blockquote></div><br>
>
> --e89a8f6471b11e96c704c1a58ed9--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:40:04 -0400
> From: Duncan Foley <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> The person who probably knows as much about Goodwin's intellectual life =
> as anyone is Vela Velupillai.
>
> Duncan
>
> On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Alan Freeman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>=20
>> A
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----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
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Richard Goodwin, another modeler was also very close with Schumpeter.
>>=20
>> I cannot see how Samuelson could benefit much from Schumpeter's work, =
> even
>> if he appreciated it intellectually.
>>=20
>> 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=20
>>> article I am writing. This deals with Schumpeter=92s influence on=20
>>> economists. My perhaps superficial reading of a selection of some 50=20=
>
>>> of Samuelson=92s best-known articles yields surprisingly few =
> references to
>> Schumpeter.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt =
> to=20
>>> a =91master=92. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any=20=
>
>>> rounded assessment of Schumpeter=92s contribution to economic theory. =
> I=20
>>> have found no assessment that compares, for example, with his =
> extended
>> dismissal of Marx.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Does anyone know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic =
> attempt=20
>>> to consider Schumpeter=92s ideas =96 particularly on Business Cycles, =
> but=20
>>> also on technology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history =
> of=20
>>> thought or the large number of other areas in which Schumpeter=20
>>> considered he had something to say?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Alan
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] =
> On=20
>>> 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
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> As to Michael's point 1: Should it not be 'Sraffans'?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> I have seen it quoted too, once, but I do not recall when or where.=20=
>
>>> Nor what he wanted to say with it.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last=20
>>> section of his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983,=20
>>> because, there, Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of=20
>>> Marx's assessment of the development of the rate of profit. Among=20
>>> other things, Sraffa's neokeynesianism is compared with von=20
>>> B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation in anti-marxist critique. The=20=
>
>>> section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx input-output systems' and,=20
>>> although it is part of the mathematical appendix, it gives a lot of =
> verbal
>> assessment of the schools of thought.
>>>=20
>>> (Samuelson warns not to approach the merit of economic schools=20
>>> ideologically but merely follow the logic of the economics involved.=20=
>
>>> This is indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us=20
>>> Sraff(i)ans? )
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have=20=
>
>>> written it here.
>>>=20
>>> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it=20=
>
>>> was after 1983.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Menno Rol.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 1. Did Samuelson ever say "We are all Sraffians Now"? I have my=20
>>> doubts but have seen it quoted.
>>> 2. Where can I learn what Samuelson and Solow did at MIT's Rad Lab?
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Michael Perelman
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA
>> 95929
>>=20
>> 530 898 5321
>> fax 530 898 5901
>> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:40:02 -0700
> From: michael perelman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Two Samuelson Questions
>
> 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]> w=
> rote:
>> 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 famou=
> sly
>> 'We are all=A0Sraffians now'", but no reference to the famous enunciation=
> =A0is
>> 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 =E9crit=A0:
>>>
>>> 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 sectio=
> n
>>> 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 B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orienta=
> tion
>>> in anti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx
>>> input-output systems' and, although it is part of the mathematical appen=
> dix,
>>> it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the schools of thought.
>>> (Samuelson warns not to approach=A0the merit of economic schools
>>> ideologically but merely follow the logic of the economics involved. Thi=
> s 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 wa=
> s
>>> after 1983.
>>>
>>> Menno Rol.
>>>
>>> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Did Samuelson ever=A0 say "We are all Sraffians Now"?=A0 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-o=
> f-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). =93Sraffian Economics=94 in The New Palgrave: A
>>> Dictionary of Economics (edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P.
>>> Newman),London: Macmillan
>>> Samuelson, P. A. (2001). =93A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm=92s Capital The=
> ory:
>>> Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared By Pre-Sraffian Mainstream Capital Theor=
> y=94,
>>> Journal of the History of Economic Thought, V. 23, N. 3: 301-317
>>>
>>> Please note that PAS did spell it Sraffian ..
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --=20
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:27:41 +0000
> From: Erreygers Guido <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Two Samuelson Questions
>
> --_000_2844E3D792ACF8439B4E8957A3D179283DA3130Cxmail30aduaacbe_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Maybe an alleged statement of Frank Hahn has been imputed to Paul Samuelson=
> . In a "Comment" on Pierangelo Garegnani's paper "Sraffa: Classical versus =
> Marginalist Analysis" Geoff Harcourt wrote:
>
>
>
> 'So, said Hahn, what is all the fuss about, we can all be Sraffians now; or=
> , rather, all Sraffians can be general equilibrium theorists.' (p. 142)
>
>
>
> Harcourt referred to Hahn's article "The Neo-Ricardians" (Cambridge Journal=
> of Economics, December 1982, 6(4), 353-374), but the statement 'we can all=
> be Sraffians now' cannot be found verbatim in that article.
>
>
>
> Garegnani's paper and Harcourt's comment are in: Krishna Bharadwaj and Bert=
> ram Schefold (Eds.), Essays on Piero Sraffa. Critical Perspectives on the R=
> evival of Classical Theory, London, Unwin Hyman, 1990, respectively on pp. =
> 112-141 and 141-144. In the same volume one also finds Samuelson's paper "R=
> evisionist Findings on Sraffa" (pp. 263-279), followed by a series of comme=
> nts and a reply (pp. 280-330).
>
>
>
> Guido Erreygers
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --_000_2844E3D792ACF8439B4E8957A3D179283DA3130Cxmail30aduaacbe_
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
> osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
> xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
> //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>>
> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
> <style><!--
> /* Font Definitions */
> @font-face
> {font-family:Cambria;
> panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
> @font-face
> {font-family:Calibri;
> panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> /* Style Definitions */
> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:11.0pt;
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
> a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline;}
> a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> color:purple;
> text-decoration:underline;}
> p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
> margin:0cm;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"Cambria","serif";
> mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
> span.PlainTextChar
> {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
> mso-style-priority:99;
> mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
> font-family:"Cambria","serif";}
> .MsoChpDefault
> {mso-style-type:export-only;
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
> @page WordSection1
> {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
> margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
> div.WordSection1
> {page:WordSection1;}
> --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
> </head>
> <body lang=3D"EN-GB" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
> <div class=3D"WordSection1">
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">Maybe an alleged statement of Frank Hahn has been=
> imputed to Paul Samuelson. In a “Comment” on Pierangelo Garegn=
> ani's paper “Sraffa: Classical versus Marginalist Analysis” Geo=
> ff Harcourt wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">‘So, said Hahn, what is all the fuss about,=
> we can all be Sraffians now; or, rather, all Sraffians can be general equi=
> librium theorists.’ (p. 142)<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">Harcourt referred to Hahn’s article “=
> The Neo-Ricardians” (<i>Cambridge Journal of Economics</i>, December =
> 1982, 6(4), 353-374), but the statement ‘we can all be Sraffians now&=
> #8217; cannot be found verbatim in that article.<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">Garegnani’s paper and Harcourt’s comm=
> ent are in: Krishna Bharadwaj and Bertram Schefold (Eds.),
> <i>Essays on Piero Sraffa. Critical Perspectives on the Revival of Classica=
> l Theory</i>, London, Unwin Hyman, 1990, respectively on pp. 112-141 and 14=
> 1-144. In the same volume one also finds Samuelson’s paper “Rev=
> isionist Findings on Sraffa” (pp. 263-279),
> followed by a series of comments and a reply (pp. 280-330). <o:p></o:p></p=
>>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">Guido Erreygers<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"mso-fareast-languag=
> e:EN-GB">-----Original Message-----<br>
> <br>
> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">> 1. Did Samuelson ever say "We are=
> all Sraffians Now"? I have my
> <o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">> doubts but have seen it quoted.<o:p></o:p></=
> p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">> 2. Where can I learn what Samuelson and Solo=
> w did at MIT's Rad Lab?<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText">> Michael Perelman<o:p></o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --_000_2844E3D792ACF8439B4E8957A3D179283DA3130Cxmail30aduaacbe_--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:25:16 +0300
> From: Huseyin Ozel <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> I am not sure if they are relevant to the questions asked, but the
> following by Samuelson (about Schumpeter and Sraffa) may be helpful
> also:
>
>
> Paul A. Samuelson, =93Reflections on the Schumpeter I knew well=94 Journal
> of Evolutionary Economics (2003) 13: 463=96467
>
> Paul A. Samuelson, =93Report card on Sraffa at 100=94, The European
> Journal of the Histoy ofEcmomic Thought 5:3 458-467 Autumn 1998
>
> Paul A. Samuelson T, Erkko M. Etul, =93Testing to confirm that
> Leontief=96Sraffa matrix equations for input/output must obey constancy
> of returns to scale=94 Economics Letters ,90 (2006) 183=96188
>
> Best,
>
> H=FCseyin =D6zel
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:02 AM, D. Wade Hands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I think some sense of how Samuelson felt about Schumpeter as a theorist i=
> s
>> in Samuelson=92s 1983 Distinguished Lecture for the Eastern Economic
>> Association =93Marx, Keynes, and Schumpeter=94 (Ch. 304 of Vol. 5 of the
>> collected papers). The vast majority of the lecture was spent on Marx, bu=
> t
>> what he said about Schumpeter is interesting. The ambivalence is clear. H=
> e
>> praises Schumpeter for 1) the theory of entrepreneurship, 2) history of
>> economic thought, and 3) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, but
>> criticizes him for 1) his early support of the =93Kondratieff moonshine,=
> =94 2)
>> his narrow definition of capitalism and broad definition of socialism, an=
> d
>> 3) his praise of Marx as a great economic theorist. These things are
>> interesting, but I think the big issue is Schumpeter=92s view of Keynes.
>> Samuelson says: =93Schumpeter never discerned any scientific merit in Key=
> nes=92
>> paradigm. Yet economists all over the world, including some of Schumpeter=
> =92s
>> own best pupils, praised Keynes and followed him. How to account for this=
> if
>> no scientific merit was involved?=94 (p. 272 of reprint). It seems that
>> Samuelson took Schumpeter=92s criticism of Keynes quite personally. This =
> is
>> nothing definitive of course, but something to think about.
>>
>> Wade
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Alan Freeman <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:28:54 -0700
>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Conversation: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>> Subject: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>>
>> I have a further question about Samuelson, in connection with an article =
> I
>> am writing. This deals with Schumpeter=92s influence on economists. My pe=
> rhaps
>> superficial reading of a selection of some 50 of Samuelson=92s best-known
>> articles yields surprisingly few references to Schumpeter.
>>
>> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to a
>> =91master=92. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any rounded
>> assessment of Schumpeter=92s contribution to economic theory. I have foun=
> d no
>> assessment that compares, for example, with his extended dismissal of Mar=
> x.
>>
>> Does anyone know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic attempt to
>> consider Schumpeter=92s ideas =96 particularly on Business Cycles, but al=
> so 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 w=
> hat
>> 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 t=
> he
>> development of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa's
>> neokeynesianism is compared with von B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientat=
> ion
>> in anti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx
>> input-output systems' and, although it is part of the mathematical append=
> ix,
>> it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the schools of thought.
>>
>> (Samuelson warns not to approach the merit of economic schools ideologica=
> lly
>> but merely follow the logic of the economics involved. This is indeed wha=
> t
>> 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 =A0say "We are all Sraffians Now"? =A0I 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:56:12 +0000
> From: "Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: 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 p=
> robably accurately identified as being the world's leading expert on Goodwi=
> n'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 "Sra=
> ffans" just sounds weird.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Beha=
> lf 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 u=
> ndertook 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 Beha=
> lf 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 us=
> es models and theorems; besides, Samuelson's work was not amenable to model=
> s 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=20
>> article I am writing. This deals with Schumpeter's influence on=20
>> economists. My perhaps superficial reading of a selection of some 50=20
>> of Samuelson's best-known articles yields surprisingly few references=20
>> to
> Schumpeter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to=20
>> a 'master'. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any=20
>> rounded assessment of Schumpeter's contribution to economic theory. I=20
>> 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=20
>> to consider Schumpeter's ideas - particularly on Business Cycles, but=20
>> also on technology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history of=20
>> thought or the large number of other areas in which Schumpeter=20
>> considered he had something to say?
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On=20
>> 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.=20
>> Nor what he wanted to say with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last=20
>> section of his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983,=20
>> because, there, Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of=20
>> Marx's assessment of the development of the rate of profit. Among=20
>> other things, Sraffa's neokeynesianism is compared with von=20
>> B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation in anti-marxist critique. The=20
>> section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx input-output systems' and,=20
>> although it is part of the mathematical appendix, it gives a lot of=20
>> verbal
> assessment of the schools of thought.
>>
>> (Samuelson warns not to approach=A0the merit of economic schools=20
>> ideologically but merely follow the logic of the economics involved.
>> This is indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us=20
>> Sraff(i)ans? )
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have=20
>> written it here.
>>
>> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it=20
>> was after 1983.
>>
>>
>>
>> Menno Rol.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Did Samuelson ever=A0 say "We are all Sraffians Now"?=A0 I have my=20
>> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:54:33 +0000
> From: Arthur Diamond <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: FW: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> --_000_FE211761A758E94DB972D008334F9F28070237D2BL2PRD0710MB349_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> A paragraph in my review of McCraw's Prophet of Innovation is relevant:
>
> The story told by McCraw has a different leitmotif from that told by the yo=
> ung Paul Samuelson who, in his earlier career, would sometimes gently ridic=
> ule his professor Schumpeter, making fun of his long wave theories and the =
> quaint periodicity of his lecture attire. From the longer perspective of hi=
> s own old age, however, Samuelson sees Schumpeter in a way that is more co=
> mplementary to McCraw's story. Near the end of his banquet lecture at the =
> 2002 meetings of the International Schumpeter Society, Samuelson (2003, p. =
> 467) said "In chess you are only as good as your worst move. In creative sc=
> ience you are as good as your best moves." And though he did not precisely=
> say so, in his closing sentences, Samuelson implied that Joseph Schumpeter=
> 's best moves were very good moves indeed!
>
> (Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. "McCraw's Prophet of Innovation: Schumpeter's Best=
> Move." In Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: A R=
> esearch Annual, edited by Warren J. Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle and Ross B. Emm=
> ett. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, vol. 27-=
> A. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald, JAI, 2009, pp. 207-223.)
>
> The full Samuelson quote can be found near the end of:
>
> Samuelson, P. A. (2003). Reflections on the Schumpeter I knew well. Journal=
> of Evolutionary Economics, 13(5), 463-467.
>
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:=
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Alan Freeman
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 12:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> I have a further question about Samuelson, in connection with an article I =
> am writing. This deals with Schumpeter's influence on economists. My perhap=
> s superficial reading of a selection of some 50 of Samuelson's best-known a=
> rticles yields surprisingly few references to Schumpeter.
>
> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to a 'm=
> aster'. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any rounded assessm=
> ent of Schumpeter's contribution to economic theory. I have found no assess=
> ment that compares, for example, with his extended dismissal of Marx.
>
> Does anyone know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic attempt to c=
> onsider Schumpeter's ideas - particularly on Business Cycles, but also on t=
> echnology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history of thought or th=
> e large number of other areas in which Schumpeter considered he had somethi=
> ng to say?
>
> Alan
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:=
> [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]<mailto:[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 wha=
> t he wanted to say with it.
>
> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last section o=
> f his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983, because, there, Samue=
> lson tries to weigh the several criticisms of Marx's assessment of the deve=
> lopment of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa's neokeynesianism=
> is compared with von B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation in anti-marxi=
> st critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx input-output syste=
> ms' and, although it is part of the mathematical appendix, it gives a lot o=
> f verbal assessment of the schools of thought.
> (Samuelson warns not to approach the merit of economic schools ideologicall=
> y but merely follow the logic of the economics involved. This is indeed wha=
> t Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us Sraff(i)ans? )
>
> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have writt=
> en it here.
> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it was a=
> fter 1983.
>
> Menno Rol.
>
> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:michael.p=
> [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
>
>
> --_000_FE211761A758E94DB972D008334F9F28070237D2BL2PRD0710MB349_
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
> osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
> xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
> //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
> 1">
> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
> <style><!--
> /* Font Definitions */
> @font-face
> {font-family:Calibri;
> panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> @font-face
> {font-family:Tahoma;
> panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
> @font-face
> {font-family:"CG Times";
> panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
> /* Style Definitions */
> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
> a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline;}
> a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> color:purple;
> text-decoration:underline;}
> p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
> {mso-style-priority:99;
> mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
> margin:0in;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:8.0pt;
> font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
> span.BalloonTextChar
> {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
> mso-style-priority:99;
> mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
> font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
> span.EmailStyle19
> {mso-style-type:personal;
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> color:#1F497D;}
> span.EmailStyle20
> {mso-style-type:personal;
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> color:#1F497D;}
> span.EmailStyle22
> {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
> color:#1F497D;}
> .MsoChpDefault
> {mso-style-type:export-only;
> font-size:10.0pt;}
> @page WordSection1
> {size:8.5in 11.0in;
> margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
> div.WordSection1
> {page:WordSection1;}
> --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
> </head>
> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
> <div class=3D"WordSection1">
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D">A paragraph in my review of McCraw’s
> <i>Prophet of Innovation</i> is relevant:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-left:.5in"><span style=3D"font-famil=
> y:"CG Times","serif";color:#1F497D">The story told by M=
> cCraw has a different leitmotif from that told by the young Paul Samuelson =
> who, in his earlier career, would sometimes gently ridicule
> his professor Schumpeter, making fun of his long wave theories and the qua=
> int periodicity of his lecture attire. From the longer perspective of his o=
> wn old age, however, Samuelson sees Schumpeter in a way that is more =
> complementary to McCraw’s story. Near
> the end of his banquet lecture at the 2002 meetings of the International S=
> chumpeter Society, Samuelson (2003, p. 467) said “In chess you are on=
> ly as good as your worst move. In creative science you are as good as your =
> best moves.” And though he did not precisely
> say so, in his closing sentences, Samuelson implied that Joseph Schumpeter=
> ’s best moves were very good moves indeed!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;text-aut=
> ospace:none">
> <span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times","serif""><o:p>&nb=
> sp;</o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;text-aut=
> ospace:none">
> <span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times","serif"">(Diamond=
> , Arthur M., Jr. "McCraw's Prophet of Innovation: Schumpeter's Best Mo=
> ve." In
> <i>Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: A Research =
> Annual</i>, edited by Warren J. Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle and Ross B. Emmett.=
> Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, vol. 27=
> -A. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald, JAI, 2009,
> pp. 207-223.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D">The full Samuelson quote can be found near the=
> end of:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"CG Times",&quo=
> t;serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><span style=3D"font-fa=
> mily:"CG Times","serif"">Samuelson, P. A. (2003). Refle=
> ctions on the Schumpeter I knew well.
> <i>Journal of Evolutionary Economics</i>, 13(5), 463–467.<span style=
> =3D"color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
> libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
> /p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
> libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
> /p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
> libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
> /p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
> libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span><=
> /p>
> <div>
> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> 0in 0in">
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"=
> ;Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
> ize:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Societie=
> s for the History of Economics
> <a href=3D"mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]">[mailto:[log in to unmask]]</a> <b>On =
> Behalf Of
> </b>Alan Freeman<br>
> <b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 03, 2012 12:29 PM<br>
> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
> <b>Subject:</b> [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question<o:p></o:p></s=
> pan></p>
> </div>
> </div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I have a f=
> urther 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.
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> =
> ;</o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Samuelson =
> was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to a ‘maste=
> r’. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any rounded
> assessment of Schumpeter’s contribution to economic theory. I have f=
> ound no assessment that compares, for example, with his extended dismissal =
> of Marx.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> =
> ;</o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Does anyon=
> e know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic attempt to consider Sc=
> humpeter’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 so=
> mething to say?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> =
> ;</o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Alan<o:p><=
> /o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> =
> ;</o:p></span></p>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA" style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-=
> family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> =
> ;</o:p></span></p>
> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
> 0in 0in">
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"=
> ;Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
> ize:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Societie=
> s for the History of Economics
> <a href=3D"mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]">[mailto:[log in to unmask]]</a> <b>On =
> Behalf Of
> </b>M.E.G.M.Rol<br>
> <b>Sent:</b> June-03-12 2:21 AM<br>
> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">As to Michael's point 1: Should=
> it not be 'Sraffans'? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">I have seen it quoted too, once=
> , but I do not recall when or where. Nor what he wanted to say with it.<o:p=
>></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">The obvious place to look for s=
> uch a quote would be the very last section of his 'Foundations', in the enl=
> arged 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 neokey=
> nesianism is compared with von B=F6hm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation in a=
> nti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx input-out=
> put systems' and, although it is part
> of the mathematical appendix, it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the s=
> chools of thought.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">(Samuelson warns not to approac=
> h the merit of economic schools
> <em>ideologically</em> but merely follow the <em>logic</em> of the economic=
> s involved. This is indeed what Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes u=
> s Sraff(i)ans? )<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">Anyways, if he ever came to thi=
> s conviction before 1983 he would have written it here.
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">So I checked but did not see it=
> . If he ever said it, I would guess it was after 1983.<o:p></o:p></span></p=
>>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">Menno Rol. <o:p></o:p></sp=
> an></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">On 03-06-12, <b>michael perelma=
> n </b><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">michael.perelman3@=
> GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:
> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA">1. Did Samuelson ever say=
> "We are all Sraffians Now"? I have my<br>
> doubts but have seen it quoted.<br>
> 2. Where can I learn what Samuelson and Solow did at MIT's Rad Lab?<br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Michael Perelman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> <div>
> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
> </div>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --_000_FE211761A758E94DB972D008334F9F28070237D2BL2PRD0710MB349_--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:50:27 +0000
> From: Matias Vernengo <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> Barkley is right, but perhaps we are Sraffians because we are Sraffans and =
> Keynesians at the same time.
>
> Mat=EDas 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 R=
> osser, 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 p=
> robably accurately identified as being the world's leading expert on Goodwi=
> n'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 "Sra=
> ffans" just sounds weird.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Beha=
> lf 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 u=
> ndertook 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 Beha=
> lf 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 us=
> es models and theorems; besides, Samuelson's work was not amenable to model=
> s 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
>> B=F6hm-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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of SHOE Digest - 3 Jun 2012 to 4 Jun 2012 (#2012-84)
> ********************************************************
|
