Re: Uncertainty and Liquidity Preference

[paul davidson <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>]

At 09:56 AM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>To what I have to conclude that Marx's critique of classical economics
>(expressed below by Paul Mattick Jr.)remains valid 100 years later to
>your version of Post-Keynesian economics:
>
>"Why is labor-time dealt with in this system as value (i.e., by means
>of price relations), rather than as labor time?  It was the economists'
>failure to ask this question that led both to neglect of the forms of
>value -for instance, to unsatisfactory theories of money- and to
>misunderstanding of the nature of value-labor itself." (Paul Mattick
>Jr., International Journal of Political Economy, Winter 1991-92)
>

Dear Aldo:

If you wish to engage in egregarious Marxian rodomontade, please do not
expect me to respond.

I am describing how the real entreprenurial economy in which we lve
operates and not some airy-fairy Marxian utopia.

I think questions about the ultimate source of value are philosophical
conundrums similar to how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.  The
answer to such conundrums may keep many philosophers employed but the
answer does not help the working class one iota. (And I assume you would
profess to be a staunch advocate of helping workers!) Understanding how
money operates in the world we live in can help us design policies that
improve the lot of the workers and all residents of a civilized society.
(See G. Davidson and P. Davidson, ECONOMICS FOR A CIVILIZED SOCIETY, 1996,
Revised edition).
Paul
Paul
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>