>Yoshie wrote:
>
>> First of all, why do you consider Engels' simple words to be
>> objectionable "jargon," while remaining unoffended by exchanges such
>> as the following?
>>
>> >Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>> >
>> >>In particular, I am confused as to how post keynesian theorists
>> >>insist on both the endogeneity of the money supply (that is, the
>> >>Fed is obliged to supply the quantity of money that is demanded by
>> >>economic agents) while elevating the Fed to the key, autonomous
>> >>institution in the determination of the performance of the
>> >>macroeconomy.
>> >
>> >There's more than one kind of endogenist. Quoting myself from Wall
>Street:
>> >
>> >>Robert Pollin (1991; 1993) usefully divided the two major schools
>> >>of post-Keynesian endogenists into the accommodative and the
>> >>structural. Accommodative endogeneity holds that the central bank
>> >>has no choice but to validate private credit demand by providing
>> >>whatever reserves the banking system needs to accommodate the loans
>> >>that it has already made; that means there is no effective
>> >>constraint on credit. Leading proponents of this school include
>> >>Nicholas Kaldor and Basil Moore. Structural endogeneity - the
>> >>branch that appeals to both Pollin and me - holds that central bank
>> >>attempts to constrain the growth of credit are frequently evaded
>> >>through creative finance.
>>
>> Your response cannot but originate in your prejudice against Marxism,
>> since you don't find non-Marxist "jargon" objectionable.
>
>Didn't read this post till now. It's crap.
You mean the style or the content? If the content, why is it crappy? If the style, can you use simpler words of your choice & explain the same?
You are _not_ of an opinion that the working class don't have to understand credit beyond the use of pawnshops, credit cards, mortgages, etc., are you?
> > Secondly, a washing-woman and a data-entry worker, provided only that
>> they are literate, can learn to make sense of Engels's words. Those
>> who are illiterate, as many workers & peasants in poor nations are,
>> can still make sense of Marx & Engels, if the main arguments of their
>> works are clearly communicated to them orally.
>
>Perhaps. Depends on the person. The people I've worked with have enough
>trouble making ends meet and are too busy trying to prevent their kids from
>getting shot or smoking crack to ponder the meaning of Marx and Engels.
>Maybe you know more enlightened workers.
Have you taken a look at "On the Uses of a Liberal Education -- As a Weapon in the Hands of the Restless Poor" by Earl Shorris that Doug posted here in two parts? What do you think?
My father was a steelworker (the kind of worker that even a workerist would readily recognize as a worker) & is now retired. He has had a vast collection of paperbacks. I remember reading his books when I was a child: Marx, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Flaubert, Hesse, Mann, Akutagawa Ryunosuke, Tanizaki Junichiro, Natsume Soseki, Sakaguchi Ango, Mori Ogai, Takiji Kobayashi, etc.
Not all workers read Marx, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, etc., to be sure, but that's not because they are inherently more difficult to read than technical manuals for operating cranes, hoists, & other equipment that many workers have to read.
Yoshie