RE: [Pen-l] Post-Keynesianism at MR?

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Monopoly Capital brand neo-Marxism has always drawn on Keynes, Kalecki, and Schumpeter.  (Sweezy was Schumpeter’s graduate assistant at Harvard, by the way.)  Since Minsky drew on Keynes, Kalecki, Schumpeter, and Marx, it is no surprise that he fits in there as well. Some Classical Marxist critics of the Monopoly Capital school, such as Shaikh, have long argued that Sweezy et al didn’t think Marx had a theory of effective demand and so looked to Keynes and Kalecki for one.  That said, I believe they were always critical of conventional Keynesian economics and policy, and view of the State. MF

 

---

From: pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gernot Koehler
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:22 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Pen-l] Post-Keynesianism at MR?

 

I read John Bellamy Foster’s article “Monopoly-Finance Capital” (Monthly Review 2006), which is of interest in the context of current debates. What struck me is the importance in Foster’s discussion of such authors as Keynes, Schumpeter, Kalecki, and Minsky; and there is a Sweezy quote like “conceptualization of the capital accumulation process is one-sided and incomplete” and a Foster statement like “Both production and finance under capitalism are at one and the same time both real and monetary in nature.”
GK

---

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l