"Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory

[aldo balardini <balardini@xxxxxxxxx>]

The following are comments regarding the sociology of
the economics profession that came to my mind after
reading a couple of chapters of "Debunking Economics"
followed by questions to Steve Keen.

Some time ago I was searching for material on the
sociology of the economics profession and soon became
very dissappointed with the lack of critical material
in this area.  However, the literature does have some
some jewels like the article by Leijonhufvud, "Life
Among the Econ", which is great leisure reading as
well as a really good and funny critique of
sociological aspects of the economics profession, as
Steve points out on the second chapter of his
"Debunking Economics".  But unfortunately, I was again
dissappointed with the lack of internal critique of
this article.  See, what I was (and still) looking for
was a piece in which an economist, an insider,
criticizes those sociological aspects of the
profession that applies to him/her even in his/her
position as a heterodox economist. Most critiques of
the economic orthodoxy comes from heterodox economists
that somehow feel that they, in their position as
member of an alternative school of thought, are free
from certain sociological influences that affect all
practitioners of the profession.  In reality, from my
point of view, heterodox economists are affected as
much or even more by the same sociological factors
that affect their orthodox colleagues because in their
decire to somehow acquire recognition from their
fellow heterodox economists they practice accepted
"critical behavior".  What is missing is the critique
of certain features underlying this behavior that make
heterodox economists blind in their critical assesment
of different economic theories even when confronted
with counter-supportive evidence right in front of
their eyes.  The best example of this, and something
that Leijonhufvud fails to address, is the never
ending quest of the ECON TRIBE TO PROVE THE EVIL
SPIRIT (MARX) WRONG to use his own language.  Steve's
chapter 14 testifies to this "supersticious" practice
of insisting in accusing a theory (Marx's value
theory) of "logical inconsistency" even when as a
member of OPE-L he is familiar with an interpretation
(TSS) that has for the last 20 years proven, or
"solved", many times over the very same aspect (the
transformation problem) that he identifies as being
the cause of the logical inconsistency in Max's (the
devil) theory.

My question to you Steve is whether you have ever
thought about these sociological aspects and practices
affecting your own work and which is so well accepted
and encouraged among the "heterodox Econ tribe" or
your fellow Sraffian, Neo-Ricardian and (most but not
all) Post-Keynesian theorists.  In case you don't
understand what I am saying, I would like to know why
do you argue in your book that Marx's value theory is
logically inconsistent without mentioning that there
is a group of authors (TSS) who have refuted every
single one of those charges of inconsistencies in
Marx's value theory.  Isn't this a practice closer to
religious than to scientific procedures?  Why should
we call the supply and demand framework "superticious"
as you do in chapter 2, but ignore your own
supersticious practice of presenting bias accounts of
the theoretical debate regarding Marx's value theory
in chapter 14?
In addition, I would like to know what are your views
on the TSS and why you completely ignore these views
on your book, especially in chapter 14.

Fabian Balardini
PhD. student
Graduate Faculty
Economics Department
New School for Social Research
New York, New York

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/