calling in loans

[kjkhoo at softhome.net]

Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>Yes, many things are but most theories do not presume to prove efficiency.
>>All Sraffa was showing was that profits were indeterminate, and that with
>>a different profit rates, you get different prices.  No big deal unless
>>you buy into neo-classical orthodoxy.  More realistically, all sorts of
>>thing influence profit rates -- including the legal environment.
>
>Yup, which is why I never thought it was worth the trouble. Maybe I 
>just don't find refuting neoclassical economics worth the trouble - 
>it's so ludicrous anyway. Do I have to refute astrology too?

Astrology hardly rules our lives -- at least, not yet, until the 
goons in Washington and at the so-called international institutions 
pick up on it and make decisions based on it. Meanwhile, neoclassical 
economics rules -- and with ever greater vigour and extension as more 
and more future rulers and decision makers get their training in the 
US. Over in Vietnam, there are all these young economists, US 
trained, pushing for big bang, even pointing to China's accession to 
WTO, without noticing that the Chinese guys continue to keep a tight 
hold on things, watching their sequencing quite carefully, etc.