Re: Surplus Value or Profit - Keynes

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> "the GT is a work in progress and not a Holy Writ."
>
> I disagree.  To Keynes it was complete and that is why he published it.
If
> he did not think so, then he might have named it "Toward a GT of Money,
> Interest, and Employment."  But, he did not, he named it, "The General
> Theory of Money, Interest, and Employment."

This is what Keynes had to say on the subject matter:

"There are other criticisms [of the General Theory] also which I should be
ready to debate.  But tho I might be able to justify my own language, I am
anxious not to be led, through doing so in too much detail, to overlook the
substantial points which may, nevertheless, underlie the reactions which my
treatment has produced in the minds of my critics.  I am more attached to
the comparatively simple fundamental ideas which underlie my theory than to
the particular forms in which I have embodied them, and I have no desire
that the latter should be crystalized at the present stage of the debate.
If the simple basic ideas can become familiar and acceptable, time and
experience and the collaboration of a number of minds will discover the best
way of expressing them." ('The General Theory of Employment', in The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1037).

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Reilly" <seanjreilly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "PKT Listserv" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Surplus Value or Profit


> "the GT is a work in progress and not a Holy Writ."
>
> I disagree.  To Keynes it was complete and that is why he published it.
If
> he did not think so, then he might have named it "Toward a GT of Money,
> Interest, and Employment."  But, he did not, he named it, "The General
> Theory of Money, Interest, and Employment."
>
> Sean
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gunnar T¢masson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Surplus Value or Profit
>
>
> >
> > Gunnar:
> >
> > Alright, now that it has been established that your critique
> > is illogical, what's left would be to deal with mine and
> > others' conciliatory view of Keynes' modelling.  Unlike your
> > own obvious non-sequitur however, vagueness in conclusion is
> > usually salvageable and doesn't make the entire discourse
> > incoherent.  If you don't think so, you have to come up with
> > another set of arguments entirely.  But I've lost interest
> > and like to leave this thread on the agreement that the GT is
> > a work in progress and not a Holy Writ.
> >
> > John V
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gunnar_T=F3masson?=
> > <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>,
> >     "Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:06:48 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Surplus Value or Profit
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Gunnar:
> > >
> > > With all due respect, but I would suggest that it takes
> > more
> > > than "a brief cursory look at Chapters 1 - 6" to argue the
> > > supposed incoherence of Keynes' GT.
> >
> > *****
> > John, you are not good at reading between the lines - I am
> > advising Bruce
> > that, unless he straightens me out and identifies the
> > passages in Chs. 1-6
> > in which he claims that Keynes had "already" explained that
> > part of final
> > demand was financed through new credit creation, I submit
> > that his claim to
> > that effect is without foundation in fact.
> > *****
> >
> > > Then you probably would discover that Keynes had a specific
> > > motive for putting A1 (the payments *including profits* to
> > > other entrepreneurs) within the domain of user costs.  And
> > > that he explicitly prohibits the concept of U=0.
> >
> > *****
> > Ditto for your argument - unless you can point to specific
> > passages in Chs.
> > 1-6 which support your reading of the 'probable' case made by
> > Keynes, your
> > argument cannot be taken seriously.
> > *****
> >
> > >   Your argument hinges on U=0 and on a static
> > interpretation
> > > of the model.  As someone else remarked already, profits
> > (GT
> > > congruous) are determined in the *redistribution* of income
> > > and not in its initial distribution.  Hence your argument
> > > falls apart from within.
> >
> > *****
> > Ditto.
> > *****
> >
> > >
> > > John V
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>