Showing posts with label transformation problem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transformation problem. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Review of Money and Totality by Fred Moseley — The Internationalists

This is a substantial book which the author admits has been 20 years in the making. [1] It deals primarily with Moseley’s own “Macro-Monetary” interpretation of Marx’s economic writings and takes up and rebuts criticisms of this interpretation. However, the book also looks critically at the major interpretations of Marx’s economic work, by Marxist academic economists, which have emerged in the last 100 years, giving a brief description of them and critically examining their failings. Many people may not realise this, but for the greater part of the twentieth century the accepted view among academic Marxist economists, which was generally known as the Standard Interpretation (SI), was that Marx made a fundamental mistake in his economic analysis which needed to be corrected. The key issue behind this is the so-called “transformation” problem, namely the transformation of values into prices of production. The SI and its offshoots claim that Marx failed to do this correctly and his work needs to be corrected. A number of corrections have been proposed and a further number of variations of these corrections themselves put forward in ever greater complexity. Moseley shows how these criticisms and corrections are founded on a misinterpretation of Marx’s work; and that the corrections each violate some other key aspect of Marx’s work. Moseley argues that Marx did not make a mistake and there is no transformation problem whatsoever....
Important if at all interested in Marx and Marxist/Marxian economics.

Monthly Review
Review of Money and Totality by Fred Moseley
Originally published: The Internationalists (August 22, 2019)

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Michael Roberts — William Baumol and the transformation problem


Roberts explains how Baumol showed that there is no transformation problem in Marx. Marx's critics did not understand Marx's argument correctly and attacked a straw man.
It is no accident that it is the Keynesians and post-Keynesians like Joan Robinson that were (and are) the most vehement against Marxist economic theory – because Marxism is the main opponent of Keynesian influence in the labour movement.
William Baumol may have been as mainstream an economist that you could find – an exponent of the neoclassical equilibrium and marginalism. But he was also a surprisingly acute observer of Marx’s exploitation theory of capitalism. As a result, he could show the Keynesian (and neo-Ricardian) claim that Marx’s value theory was an ‘irrelevant and unnecessary detour’ was wrong. For that, we can thank him.
Michael Roberts Blog
William Baumol and the transformation problem
Michael Roberts

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Michael Roberts reviews Fred Moseley, 'Money and totality'


This pertains especially to those interested in Marx, Marxist and Marxian economics and the controversies thereof. However, being about "money," it is also of interest to those interested in MMT.

Fred Moseley debunks the major critiques of Marx's Das Capital as being without foundation.

Weekly Worker
Consistent, realistic, verifiable – Michael Roberts reviews: Fred Moseley, 'Money and totality'

There is a shorter review at Michael Robert blog.

Fred Moseley and Marx’s macro-monetary theory

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Branko Milanovic — Labor theory of value: a primer

This is a different post from my normal posts. It is a primer and I must ask indulgence from many readers for whom this is all too well-known and obvious. Why do I write it then? Because recently I was several times surprised by the casualness with which people talk of “labor theory of value” apparently implying thereby that it is some weird concoction where the price of a good should simply be proportional to the number of hours one has put in producing it. I have heard it from non-economists and it has not truly surprised me; but I have heard it from economists too and thought it was odd. So I decided to write this 1200-word primer.…
Global Inequality
Labor theory of value: a primer
Branko Milanovic | Visiting Presidential Professor at City University of New York Graduate Center and senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), and formerly lead economist in the World Bank's research department and senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Monday, March 2, 2015

Barkley Rosser — He's Baaack! Karl Marx And The Transformation Problem

The annual Eastern Economic Association meetings ended yesterday in New York. On Saturday a session on Marx's transformation problem drew an audience of roughly 70 people, with talks by Anwar Shaikh and Duncan Foley, both of the New School, Fred Moseley of Mount Holyoke, with comments by David Laibman, formerly of Brooklyn College and longtime editor of Science and Society, the longest running (since the 30s) scholarly Marxist journal in the US. Besides the unexpectedly large crowd, there was news. 
One piece of news coming from Mosedey is that Karl Marx is about to have a fresh publication in the English language, his original manuscript for Volume III of Capital, which was only published in German in the 1990s....
Econospeak
He's Baaack! Karl Marx And The Transformation Problem
J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics and Business Administration James Madison University