>>
>> Joan Robinson isn't a good guide to the bath water in Marx. For her,
>> the baby is Ricardian; the bath water is Hegelian.
>
> =================
>
> I'll take JR's Ockamite, samurai sword approach to the LTV and alot of
> the
> Hegelian verbiage in KM over many of the alternatives any day.
>
That settles it then.
>
>
>> I don't think Doug is a Bedlamite economist.
>
> =================
>
> I never asserted he was. Anyone on this list or elsewhere who's read
> any
> of his material knows that. The fact of the matter was that he was
> demonstrating that minor increases of taxes on the wealthy and the
> strengthening of the social safety net for the working class poor in a
> manner that was not inconsistent with neoclassical econ. a la Edgeworth
> etc. It was the kind of argument that guys like Max Sawicky and others
> can
> take onto NPR or CNNfn and run with. And when they do, Hegel *will not*
> come up in the ensuing debate.
That's true. The "diminishing marginal utility of wealth" argument won't be an easy sell however.
Doug wrote:
> Brooks may be a conservative, but I'm afraid he's mostly right about
> this argument. That Time poll, which has 39% of Americans either
> thinking they're in the top 1% or will be someday, is just as
> revealing as Brooks claims. It uncovers a fundamental fantasy about
> American life. Even though we've got the most unequal distribution of
> income in the rich world, the highest poverty levels, the greatest
> persistence of low-wage pay, and only moderate levels of mobility -
> that all doesn't matter. Most Americans just don't care. You could
> recite the facts over & over and it won't make a dent in that
> fundamental fantasy. I'll be damned if I can think what to do about
> it.
> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030106/
> 000972.html>
Ted