Re: Marx and Keynes on Unemployment

[ECAS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx id <01HPVBUJYHRK8XG1O6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:07:28 +1000]

>ajit [now enjoying the warmth of autumn in OZ!] wrote to paul:
>>This does not mean that one is
>>claiming that capitalism is a non-monetary system or that wages are paid in
>>real terms etc. It only means that theoretically the whole analysis could be
>>conducted in real terms without a recourse to money. (So there you go Claudio
>>Sardoni!).
>
Claudio replied, somewhat disturbed:

>I do not understand how a monetary economy can be analyzed without recourse
>to money. Unless you behave as Keynes said neoclassical economists behaved:
>let us pretend that there is no money even though we know that money exists.
>
bill says:

But in a capitalist economy where the goal of the capitalist is accumulation
another source of unemployment is always possible (inevitable). this might be
the technical unemployment where capitalists strive for higher K/L ratios to
minimise the reliance on buying labour power. this sort of unemployment is not
due to uncertainty about the future, or mistakes about expected outcomes, or
the use of money as a safe haven. it is part of the internal dynamic of
capitalism which exists separate in logic to the sources of periodic crises.

i think that was ajit's point. not to pull a neutral veil over the analysis.
rather to separate the uncertainty-money issues (which might exist in any sort
of entrepreneurial economy where real commitments have to be made before
realisation) from the class issues (which are specific to capitalist
production).
_____________________

Ajit says: I agree with Bill. In the next posting Claudio went on to say that
since accumulation implies investment and future expectation etc., you *have*
to bring in money. But we are basically making a theoretical point. Let us
suppose there is no uncertaintly about future etc. If Caludio's point is true,
then tell me what is the logical flaw in Ricardo's chapter on machinery or how
his argument necessarily rest on the special status of money in the theory?

Cheers, ajit sinha