[PEN-L:8318] Re: Bengali famine

[Rod Hay <rodhay@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis:

You have to be careful going down this road. Sure there are elements of
monopoly, coercion, etc. But neoclassical economists (accrording to Brad,
the not so good ones) often point to these elements when someone says that
their theory does not match the results observed.

The great achievement of Sen and others like him is to show that even if the
conditions of the theory are met, the results are undesirable. In effect
they have taken the last hiding spot away. And forced them to face up to the
fact that their "best of all possible worlds" (pareto optimality) is often
not so nice.

Is it possible to separate the ideology from the technique. The more
intelligent try but I don't think that they are completely successful. Sen
and Arrow are the best at it (both are probably closet socialists). The less
talented don't even try.


----Original Message Follows----
From: Louis Proyect


The problem is how to define an economy. In countries like India we are not
really dealing with Robinson Crusoe and his island. From the little I know
of free market ideology--from courses I took as an undergraduate in
1961-65, the model is always geared to a nation-state with England usually
serving as the concrete example, even in some respects in Marx. But what
use is that when the buyer and sellers are operating under the rules that
the British navy and Viceroy establishes? The advantage of Marx and Marxism
is that it highlights the manner in which historical inequalities are
established.




Rod Hay
rodhay@xxxxxxxxxxx
The History of Economic Thought Archives
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com