Krugman on Marx

[Mathew Forstater]

But I think there at least was an interest in Marx, a certain validity in
studying Marx, earlier on that has simply disappeared.  The famous debates on
the transformation problem in JEL in the 60s and 70s included top mainstream
neoclassical economists like Samuelson and Baumol.  Same with the debates
inspired by Sraffa's work.  Samuelson has written quite a bit on Marx and
Sraffa.  We can disagree with analysis, conclusions, we can quibble about
quality, but there was a time when the best neoclassical economists (people like
Hicks, Samuelson, Baumol, etc.) had a respect for economic history and the
history of economic thought and thought it was worth reading Smith, Marx,
Keynes, and when mainstream economic journals thought it worthy of publishing
articles related to Marxian or Sraffian or post Keynesian or institutionalist
ideas.  Look at the back issues of Economic Journal from the 1960s, e.g.  That's
a big difference from today.  Early on there was also a greater interest; in
addition to the Austrians, as Michael points out, the early marginalist and
Fabian socialist Wicksteed also wrote an important piece on the labor theory of
value.

Of course, much of the attempts to refute particular aspects of Marx's work
comes from other "radical" or heterodox economists.

Mat

michael perelman wrote:


> James Baird wrote:
>
> > has there ever been a serious attempt to refute
> > Marxian economics by a "mainstream" economist?
>
> Certainly not a serious attempt.  A few, such as Michio Morishima, have
> attempted to show how Marx can be recast into mathematical formulae and thus
> appear to be respectable.  Paul Samuelson has attempted to refute Marx, but
> in a clumsy and not very effective way.  You just set up a straw man and
> knock it down.
>
> 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.
>
> For the most part, you cannot refute any economic theory unless is is
> logically inconsistent.  Some economists have tried to show logical
> inconsistencies, but those efforts amount taking different parts of his
> theory that have not yet been worked up into a finished whole.
>
> The greatest efforts at refutation have concerned the falling rate of
> profit.
> -----
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu