On Feb 14, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Lakshmi Rhone wrote:
> First time poster, and I don't understand the leftist economic point
> of
> view, though I am very concerned about social justice.
One day later:
> I wish you would share your thinking with us. As far as I can see
> the efficient markets hypothesis is discredited with nothing to
> replace it except a list of factors that act in different
> combinations to affect asset price levels. The real business cycle
> theory can't explain this downturn as it even its own exponents
> admit. The Hayekian monetary theory fails because loose monetary
> policy can't have caused that magnitude of asset bubbles. Theories
> have been discredited, and all we are left with are better or worse
> institutional descriptions and narrative accounts (John Cassidy,
> Karen Ho, Gillian Tett). None of them count as theoretical
> economics. Even Cassidy argues that general equilibrium theory is
> interesting insofar as it shows that the market won't likely tend to
> equilibrium, or be free of positive feedbacks that keep the economy
> in free fall for prolonged periods. Again you should share with us
> these several theories that do good explanatory work.
Two days later, one of yesterday's 11 posts:
> I really don’t understand why you started talking about rent when we
> were
> first trying to figure out what value is and its relation to price.
>
> I am not sure what Marx or you are saying.
And another of yesterday's 11 posts:
> ps since Alan is not talking to me, you should tell him that to the
> exent that any sense can be made of what he has said about rent, he is
> saying the exact opposite of what Marx intended: rent is not added on
> to cost or value to make price; rather value determines price and
> thereby rent. But I am glad that Alan thinks it's a bad idea to
> question the psychological stability or even motives of those with
> whom he disagrees.
Rakesh. QED.
I have my suspicions about "Norman Goodman," too, who is posting from a UCal-Berkeley IP number.
Doug