Krugman on Marx

[Fellows, Jeffrey]

The implication of internal logic suggests that acceptance or rejection
of such systems eventually comes down to the preanalytic vision (or
world view) of the person. Having a world view that markets are
efficient and ethical generators and distributors of wealth will likely
lead a person to accept neoclassical assumptions about behavior and
market structure, even if they have to be modified somewhat, that lead
to the prescribed solutions corresponding to the person's world view.
This is true for Marxists as well, since marxian theory is also
internally logical. Certainly, after being exposed to the shortcomings
of one model a person can change their theoretical allegiance, but that
would require a change in one's world view as well. The result is that
the choice between two internally logical systems is essentially an
epistemological one. But, that doesn't mean that there is no wrong or
right system. I think there is a good choice and a bad choice, or a
better choice among imperfect choices.

E.K. Hunt is a good reference for this train of thought, and in fact I
give him credit for instilling it in me (it's also my own protective
belt ;-) ).

Jeff

 ----------
From: William S. Lear
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: Re: Krugman on Marx
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:58AM

On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 22:11:46 (-0700) michael perelman writes:
>Mostly the refutations consist of denying the labor theory of value by
>asserting that capital is productive.  Probably the most serious
efforts
>came from the Austrian school, Bohm Bawerk and Hayek.

Just when I need a reference, I leave the book at home ...

Hahnel and Albert's *Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics* has a
short discussion of Marx's LTV, with, if I remember correctly, notes
to sources of further discussion.


>For the most part, you cannot refute any economic theory unless is is
>logically inconsistent.  ...

That's what Krugman and the neoclassicals would like us to believe,
isn't it?  You certainly can refute a theory by showing it is not
consistent with empirical evidence, can you not?

Bill