Baumol, Kolakowski, Schumpeter: Bohm Bawerk Mistaken
Robert Vienneau
have focussed on an issue that is largely periperal; and others
like E. Bohm-Bawerk have asserted that there is a contradiction
between the analyses of Volumes I and III which is certainly not
to be found there unless one reads into them an interpretation
different from that which Marx repeatedly emphasized."
-- William J. Baumol, "The Transformation of Values: What
Marx 'Really' Meant (An Interpretation)", _Journal of
Economic Literature_, V. 12, N. 1 (Mar. 1974), 51-62.
"Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
these in the first volume of _Capital_, it was for methodological
reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
average rate of profit."
-- Leszek Kolakowski, _Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
(Book 1)_, Chapter XIII, Section 6.
"As it was, most critics felt no hestitation in convicting him of
having by the third volume flatly contradicted the doctrine of the
first. On the face of it that verdict is not justified. If we place
ourselves on Marx's standpoint, as it is our duty in a question of
this kind, it is not absurd to look upon surplus value as a 'mass'
produced by the social process of production considered as a unit
and to make the rest a matter of distribution of that mass."
-- Joseph A. Shumpeter, "Chapter III. Marx the Economist",
_Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy_, Third Edition, New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1942, 1947, 1950.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Hunter Watson
with me. Where is he wrong?
Robert Vienneau
> > "Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
> > various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
> > demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
> > these in the first volume of _Capital_, it was for methodological
> > reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
> > same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
> > between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
> > average rate of profit."
> > -- Leszek Kolakowski, _Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
> > (Book 1)_, Chapter XIII, Section 6.
Watson the knave top posted:
> I presume your Kolakowski reference is to Volume 2.
But I quote "_Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders (Book 1)_,
Chapter XIII, Section 6."
> I happen to have it with me. Where is he wrong?
But I agree with the statement I quote from Kolakowski above.
Hunter Watson
carefully. I was dead wrong to ask the question.
But then I was never interested in that "contradiction" issue anyway.
As you know I have not read volume three of Kapital and don't intend to
waste my time doing so.
If, however, you wish to go back through B-B's critique of Vol. 1, most
specifically Ch. 1 thereof, I'll be happy to oblige. The contradiction
argument isn't necessary to B-B's other criticisms.
Robert Vienneau
contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
Bohm-Bawerk writes:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
necessary stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
Watson the knave acknowledges he was wrong, and he says that
Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
--
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
> contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
> Bohm-Bawerk writes:
>
> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> necessary stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
> and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
> be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
> the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
> manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> His System_
>
> Watson the knave acknowledges he was wrong, and he says that
> Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
I have great confidence generally in Kolakowski. How about you?
>
> > I misread you header and also failed to read the rest of your post
> > carefully. I was dead wrong to ask the question.
> >
> > But then I was never interested in that "contradiction" issue anyway.
> > As you know I have not read volume three of Kapital and don't intend to
> > waste my time doing so.
> >
> > If, however, you wish to go back through B-B's critique of Vol. 1, most
> > specifically Ch. 1 thereof, I'll be happy to oblige. The contradiction
> > argument isn't necessary to B-B's other criticisms.
Haha. You leave it at that. Where has this gotten you, Robert.
Robert Vienneau
to respond.
After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
Bohm-Bawerk writes:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
HW> ...The
HW> contradiction
HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> Watson the knave, again, does not read the posts to which he pretends
> to respond.
>
> After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
> contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
> Bohm-Bawerk writes:
>
> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
> and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
> be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
> the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
> manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> His System_
>
> Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
>
> HW> ...The
> HW> contradiction
> HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
Actually I say that Koladowski, a man I trust, was right.
>
What sort of idiots do you think the Comrades are, Vienneau?
Kolakowski, the very fine Polish political historian and philosopher
for whom I have the greatest respect, the philosopher who has taken
Marx apart to an extent that his work can never be revived, has pointed
out an insignificant error in Bohm-Bawerk having to do with an apparent
contradiction between volumes one and three of Kapital. Both
Bohm-Bawerk and Kolakowski nonetheless destroy Marx in myriad other
ways. The contradiction argument wasn't even remotely needed to
accomplish this result. Perhaps you would like to go through Kolakowski
with me? But then your courage failed you a few days ago when I
suggested that we revisit Bohm-Bawerk and Ch. 1, Vol. 1 of Kapital. I
suppose the same will be true with Kolakowski too. You have very little
moral or intellectual courage.
I certainly do not trust you as a person or your judgment in these
matters. I do trust both Bohm-Bawerk and Kolakowski. If Kolakowski
says there is no contradiction, I accept it. When you said it I did
not. You'll just have to live with that. This after the fact
demonstration that on one thing you were correct does not rehabilitate
you. I don't think you even believed it yourself until you ran across
this Kolakowski quote.
All the best,
HW
Robert Vienneau
contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
Bohm-Bawerk writes:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
HW> ...The
HW> contradiction
HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
Watson the knave, again, does not read the posts to which he pretends
to respond.
In article <1132512757.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [ Irrelevancy - deleted. ]
> What sort of idiots do you think the Comrades are, Vienneau?
I think anybody can see Watson the knave's comments are an insult
to the intelligence of anybody reading his posts.
> [ Further silliness - deleted. ]
Hunter Watson
Actually I say that Koladowski, a man I trust, was right.
What sort of idiots do you think the Comrades are, Vienneau?
Robert Vienneau
"Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [ Substanceless and meaningless bluster - deleted. ]
After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
Bohm-Bawerk writes:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
HW> ...The
HW> contradiction
HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
Watson the knave, again, does not read the posts to which he pretends
to respond.
And he will not provide any rationale for why he says Bohm-Bawerk was
mistaken about the structure of his argument. But what can one expect
from a fool who has no idea what he is talking about?
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> In article <1132703673.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [ Substanceless and meaningless bluster - deleted. ]
You´re an intellectual coward, Vienneau.
>
> Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
>
> HW> ...The
> HW> contradiction
> HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
>
> Watson ......will not provide any rationale for why he says Bohm-Bawerk was
> mistaken about the structure of his argument.
I acknowledged that BB was mistaken about a tiny fact of his argument.
I based it on the fact that Professor Kolakowski says so and I have
great confidence in him. I also invited you to go through some of
Kolakowski with me. You fled.
HW
Robert Vienneau
"Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
> > Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong...
> I acknowledged that BB was mistaken about a tiny fact of his argument.
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
Consider:
After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
Bohm-Bawerk writes:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
Watson the knave says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
HW> ...The
HW> contradiction
HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
Watson the knave will not provide any rationale for why he says
Bohm-Bawerk was mistaken about the structure of his argument.
Consider Watson the knave's demonstrated unwillingness to
discuss the obvious contrast between his and Bohm-Bawerk's
understanding of the role of "the question of the contradiction"
in Bohm-Bawerk's argument. Watson the knave somehow or other
pretends that his unwillingness to keep to the subject
demonstrates my - not his - lack of intellectual courage.
This brings up another topic - is Watson stupid or lying?
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> In article <1132882218.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
> > [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
>
> > > Watson the knave... says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong...
>
> > I acknowledged that BB was mistaken about a tiny fact of his argument.
>
> > [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
>
> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. I have read Leszek Kolakowski's "Main
Currents of Marxism" during the last year of so though I only have
volume 2 ("The Golden Age") with me just now. I suggest that when my
set is reunited we go through selected parts of it together in the open
on apst.
>
> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
Wake up, Robert. There is no "above paragraph" for the Comrades to
note.
>
> Consider:
>
> After mistakenly thinking he has explained an error - the supposed
> contradiction between volumes 1 and 3 of _Capital_ - in Marx,
> Bohm-Bawerk writes:
>
> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
> and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
> be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
> the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
> manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> His System_
Actually, BB said this at the very beginning of that Chapter and it
referred to the myriad arguments made by him throughout.
>
> Watson the knave says that Bohm-Bawerk is wrong:
No, the great Leszek Kolakowski says BB is wrong on that ultimately
insignificant matter but NOT on the rest of his criticisms. I accept
his judgment as I am, frankly, deeply impressed with the quality of his
three volume study as a whole. You have quoted him from some source but
you haven't read it. Had you, and had you been wise, you would not have
opened that door. But then you are not wise what with those naked
ladies on your professional web site along with your transparently
ego-driven resume.
I have profound respect for Leszek Kolakowski. You must too as you have
quoted him! Haha. Accordingly, let us go through his analysis in
selected parts of "Main Currents of Marxism" which is said to be "The
most complete and intellectually satisfying survey of Marx's and
Marxist thought ever written."
>
> HW> ...The
> HW> contradiction
> HW> argument ISN'T NECESSARY to B-B's other criticisms.
>
> Watson the knave will not provide any rationale for why he says
> Bohm-Bawerk was mistaken about the structure of his argument.
But I certainly do! I use the argument from authority, your favorite
suppressed rationale. Certainly you recognize it. Kolakowski is the
authority.
>
> Consider Watson the knave's demonstrated unwillingness to
> discuss the obvious contrast between his and Bohm-Bawerk's
> understanding of the role of "the question of the contradiction"
> in Bohm-Bawerk's argument. Watson the knave somehow or other
> pretends that his unwillingness to keep to the subject
> demonstrates my - not his - lack of intellectual courage.
> This brings up another topic - is Watson stupid or lying?
Lying about the extent to which Kolakowski devastates Marxian doctrine
generally? Lying about respecting him enough to accept his evaluation
of the contradiction issue? You getting in deeper and deeper, Robert.
Frankly, I think you have just picked up a quote from Kolakowski just
as you did from Rousseau--without reading what it came from-- but asi
es la vida, yours anyway.
Robert Vienneau
>> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
>> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
>> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
>>
>> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
>> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
Watson the knave "responds":
> Wake up, Robert. There is no "above paragraph" for the Comrades to
> note.
So is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
(Watson the knave did acknowledge he posts on topics where he
does know what he is talking about - e.g., the supposed
contradiction, that is, this thread's topic.)
Amongst other irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and stupidities,
Watson the knave writes:
> ...But then you are not wise what with those naked
> ladies on your professional web site...
But the Web site mentioned in my sig is not my "professional web
site". Nor does it have pictures of "naked ladies" on it. So is
Watson the knave stupid or lying?
>> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
>> NECESSARY stage... of a ... criticism... "
>> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
>> His System_
> Actually, BB said this at the very beginning of that Chapter and it
> referred to the myriad arguments made by him throughout.
The part of the above quotation I selected above does NOT refer to
an argument in chapter 4. It refers to an argument in a prior
chapter. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
Hunter Watson
> I wrote:
>
> >> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
> >> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> >> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> >>
> >> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> >> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
>
> Watson the knave "responds":
>
> > note.
>
> So is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
Well, as a matter of closely observed fact, in the "above paragraph"
you don't "talk about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's argument". You merely
make an allegation about the state of my knowledge of Bohm-Bawerk. It's
true that in a moral sense you see no distinction. That would be
characteristic. It's also clear that you display no judgment, no
discrimination even so far as a debate shorn of all standards of
intellectual honesty might entail. For you to even bring up the
questiion of Leszek Koladowski's "Main Currents of Marxism" in the
context of Bohm-Bawark's criticism of _Kapital_ is simply incompetent.
As I've said before, I accept the work of Leszek Kolakowski and as you
would know if you had read him, he devastates Marx.
>
> (Watson the knave did acknowledge he posts on topics where he
> does know what he is talking about - e.g., the supposed
> contradiction, that is, this thread's topic.)
The test here is how we do respectively on matters we both do know
something about. So far you've either failed or fled. And as I've said
before, if Kolakowski denies that Vol. I and III of _Kapital_
contradict each other, that's good enough for me at least for these
purposes.
> Amongst other irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and stupidities,
> Watson the knave writes:
>
> > ...But then you are not wise what with those naked
> > ladies on your professional web site...
>
> But the Web site mentioned in my sig is not my "professional web
> site".
Haha. The one with naked ladies certainly was. Have you taken down your
C.V. which trumpets that you do "cutting edge" stuff for ITT? Have you
taken down the naked ladies?
Nor does it have pictures of "naked ladies" on it. So is
> Watson the knave stupid or lying?
Answser the question. I'm not going back to your web site.
>
> >> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> >> NECESSARY stage... of a ... criticism... "
> >> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> >> His System_
>
> > Actually, BB said this at the very beginning of that Chapter and it
> > referred to the myriad arguments made by him throughout.
>
> The part of the above quotation I selected above does NOT refer to
> an argument in chapter 4. It refers to an argument in a prior
> chapter. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
Perhaps my memory fails me---but I doubt it---and it won't matter
anyway. Everything you've been saying hinges solely on the
"contradiction" thing which is a moot issue anyway. You're floundering.
Let me help by summarizing so as to provide you with the discipline you
seem incapable of generating by yourself:
This, following Kolakowski, is the center of Bohm-Bawerk's argument
against Marx:
"1) Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively, partly
(but not solely) because there is no way of reducing different kinds of
labour to a common measure;
2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
3) therefore the statement that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because it is not clear on what
ground we are asked to believe that value is determined by labour-time)
and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to explain the
movement of prices, still less to foresee it." (See Vol. II)
Kolakowski, discussing Hilferding's defense of Marx, goes on to say the
he (Hilferding) accepts 1) and 2), above, but denies that they affect
Marx's theory, "since it does not purport to explain actual terms of
exchange but only to discover the general laws of change, and these
are subordinate to the law of value."
Kolakowski then says: "We need only repeat here the remarks we have
already made in discussing _Capital_ (in Vol. I). In the empirical
sciences we generally define a law as a statement that in such and such
particular conditions, such and such phenomena always occur. Clearly
the statement that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of
socially necessary labour put into it is *not a law* but a definition
of value. It could be proved that it was not an arbitrary definition if
we were able to show that this particular attribute of commodities does
govern actual price-changes; this latter proposition could then be
called a law. But here is the real difficulty: price-changes depend on
several factors---the average rate of profit, the supply-demand ratio,
value, etc.---and we cannot ascertain their quantitative distribution."
(Id., emphasis added by HW)
Robert Vienneau
"Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > >> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
> > >> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> > >> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> > >>
> > >> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> > >> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
> > Watson the knave "responds":
> > > Wake up, Robert. There is no (such) "above paragraph" for the
> > > Comrades to
> > > note.
> > So is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
> Well, as a matter of closely observed fact, in the "above paragraph"
> you don't "talk about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's argument".
So now Watson the knave acknowledges the existence of the paragraph
whose existence he previously denied.
> You merely
> make an allegation about the state of my knowledge of Bohm-Bawerk.
> [ Unfounded stupidities - deleted. ]
It is true that Watson the knave is ignorant of both of the two
facets of Bohm-Bawerk's argument mentioned in that paragraph.
> > (Watson the knave did acknowledge he posts on topics where he
> > does know what he is talking about - e.g., the supposed
^^^
not
> > contradiction, that is, this thread's topic.)
I left out a word above.
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
> And as I've said
> before, if Kolakowski denies that Vol. I and III of _Kapital_
> contradict each other, that's good enough for me at least for these
> purposes.
"Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
these in the first volume of _Capital_, it was for methodological
reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
average rate of profit."
-- Leszek Kolakowski, _Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
(Book 1)_, Chapter XIII, Section 6.
In other words, Kolakowski says Bohm-Bawerk is mistaken on one of
the subjects under discussion in the post to which Watson the knave
is pretending to respond. So is Watson the knave stupid or lying
with the above thread title?
> > Amongst other irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and stupidities,
> > Watson the knave writes:
> > > ...But then you are not wise what with those naked
> > > ladies on your professional web site...
> > But the Web site mentioned in my sig is not my "professional web
> > site".
> Haha. The one with naked ladies certainly was.
Nope.
> Have you taken down your
> C.V. which trumpets that you do "cutting edge" stuff for ITT? Have you
> taken down the naked ladies?
The web site mentioned in my sig never had pictures of "naked ladies"
on it. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
> > Nor does it have pictures of "naked ladies" on it. So is
> > Watson the knave stupid or lying?
> Answser the question. I'm not going back to your web site.
My answer: Watson the knave is usually both stupid and lying, but
here he is merely stupid.
> > >> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> > >> NECESSARY stage... of a ... criticism... "
> > >> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> > >> His System_
> > > Actually, BB said this at the very beginning of that Chapter and it
> > > referred to the myriad arguments made by him throughout.
> > The part of the above quotation I selected above does NOT refer to
> > an argument in chapter 4. It refers to an argument in a prior
> > chapter. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
> Perhaps my memory fails me---but I doubt it---and it won't matter
> anyway.
Watson the knave opts for "stupid".
> Everything you've been saying hinges solely on the
> "contradiction" thing which is a moot issue anyway. You're floundering.
Watson the knave continues to pretend unsupported assertion
makes something so.
Once again, Watson the knave provides no rationale for why he
disagrees with Bohm-Bawerk about the role of the supposed
"contradiction" in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
His System_
If one understands and accepts Kolakowski, one understands that
the "error" Bohm-Bawerk mentions above does not exist. Thus, I
should think it would be moot to seek to "discover...the point at
which the [non-existent] error made its way into the system and
the manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
Furthermore, Bohm-Bawerk, as I have pointed out before, does not
actually explore how Marx developed his system. He simply could
not because he did not have access to the primary texts now
available. These texts include, for example, _The Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844_, _The German Ideology_, _The
Grundrisse_, and _Theories of Surplus Value_. So, on that score,
Bohm-Bawerk's work is outdated.
Bohm-Bawerk's investigation of the question of the "contradiction"
is also rendered obsolete by the later work of mathematical
economists, as I've pointed out.
Since I've never defended Hilferding's response to Bohm-Bawerk,
have no inclination to defend Hilferding's response, have
already pointed out post-Kolakowski empirical tests of the
labor theory of value, and am not exactly enthusiastic about
Marx's theory of value (see URL in my sig), Watson the knave's
remaining comments have little relevance to my views, however much
Watson the knave might like to pretend that his non sequiturs
are an example of "discipline".
By the way, I believe Kolakowski's work is much better than Watson
the knave makes it seem. For example, unlike Watson the knave,
Kolakowski knows enough to first set out a view before criticizing
it.
Will Watson the knave ever explain what he takes Marx's
theory of value to be? Will he ever contrast and compare his
view with Bohm-Bawerk's or mine? Of course not, for that
would be to engage in rational discussion, and Watson the
cowardly knave is incapable, uninterested, and unwilling to
engage in rational discussion.
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> In article <1133108636.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
> > > >> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the supposed
> > > >> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> > > >> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> > > >>
> > > >> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> > > >> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
>
> > > Watson the knave "responds":
>
> > > > Wake up, Robert. There is no (such) "above paragraph" for the
> > > > Comrades to
> > > > note.
>
> > > So is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
>
> > Well, as a matter of closely observed fact, in the "above paragraph"
> > you don't "talk about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's argument".
>
> So now Watson the knave acknowledges the existence of the paragraph
> whose existence he previously denied.
There is no paragraph above in which you "talk about two facets of
Bohm-Bawark's argument". What you pretend to talk about is Hunter
Watson. Your belief is that if you hurl enough abuse in his direction
your Communist comrades will think you are winning the debate. In fact
you're getting your butt kicked again and you underestimate the
intelligence of the readers of apst. You've always been afraid to
actually discuss Bohm-Bawark. Like Hilferding you *always* fail to
actually respond to Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx. Like Hilferding,
if you reply at all you simply "repeat the relevant arguments from
Kapital," and accordingly you never actually address the criticisms of
Bohm-Bawark or of Kolakowski for that matter.
>
> > You merely
> > make an allegation about the state of my knowledge of Bohm-Bawerk.
> > [ Unfounded stupidities - deleted. ]
You are also a moral and intellectual coward, a transparently devious
moral and intellectual coward. If your parents understood what you do
here they would be mortified, to say nothing of the emotion your bosses
would feel.
>
> It is true that Watson the knave is ignorant of both of the two
> facets of Bohm-Bawerk's argument mentioned in that paragraph.
Haha. This is how you "talk about" Bohm-Bawark.
>
> > > (Watson the knave did acknowledge he posts on topics where he
> > > does know what he is talking about - e.g., the supposed
> ^^^
> not
> > > contradiction, that is, this thread's topic.)
>
> I left out a word above.
I always respond to your "arguments" but this one is more garbled than
most.
>
> > [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
You are a moral and intellectual coward, Robert. And if your parents
knew what you do here they would be humiliated. If you were capable of
marriage your wife would be humiliated too.
>
> > And as I've said
> > before, if Kolakowski denies that Vol. I and III of _Kapital_
> > contradict each other, that's good enough for me at least for these
> > purposes.
>
> "Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
> various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
> demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
> these in the first volume of _Capital_, it was for methodological
> reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
> same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
> between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
> average rate of profit."
> -- Leszek Kolakowski, _Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
> (Book 1)_, Chapter XIII, Section 6.
>
> In other words, Kolakowski says Bohm-Bawerk is mistaken on one of
> the subjects under discussion in the post to which Watson the knave
> is pretending to respond. So is Watson the knave stupid or lying
> with the above thread title?
Here is the simplist, most condensed gist of Bohm-Bawark's central
arguments:
1. Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively.
2. What Marx "knew" and whether there was a contradiction between Vols.
1 and 3 isn't the question. Marx did not and could not ascertain the
"quantitative importance of value" in relation to the myriad other
factors.
3. Therefore, the suggestion "that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because itis not clear on what
ground we are asked to believe thata value is determined by
labour-time) and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to
explain the movement of prices, still less to foresee it."
>
> > > Amongst other irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and stupidities,
> > > Watson the knave writes:
>
> > > > ...But then you are not wise what with those naked
> > > > ladies on your professional web site...
>
> > > But the Web site mentioned in my sig is not my "professional web
> > > site".
>
> > Haha. The one with naked ladies certainly was.
>
> Nope.
>
> > Have you taken down your
> > C.V. which trumpets that you do "cutting edge" stuff for ITT? Have you
> > taken down the naked ladies?
>
> The web site mentioned in my sig never had pictures of "naked ladies"
> on it. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
Oh, then it was your web site´'s link to naked ladies? Explain
yourself, Robert.
>
> > > Nor does it have pictures of "naked ladies" on it. So is
> > > Watson the knave stupid or lying?
>
> > Answser the question. I'm not going back to your web site.
>
> My answer: Watson the knave is usually both stupid and lying, but
> here he is merely stupid.
Oh, I'm not lying? Haha. I'll take that to the bank. The naked ladies
live!
>
> > > >> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> > > >> NECESSARY stage... of a ... criticism... "
> > > >> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> > > >> His System_
>
> > > > Actually, BB said this at the very beginning of that Chapter and it
> > > > referred to the myriad arguments made by him throughout.
>
> > > The part of the above quotation I selected above does NOT refer to
> > > an argument in chapter 4. It refers to an argument in a prior
> > > chapter. Is Watson the knave stupid or lying?
>
> > Perhaps my memory fails me---but I doubt it---and it won't matter
> > anyway.
>
> Watson the knave opts for "stupid".
When (and if) you respond in a candid fashion to the points I make
above your comrades will be able to judge that.
>
> > Everything you've been saying hinges solely on the
> > "contradiction" thing which is a moot issue anyway. You're floundering.
>
> Watson the knave continues to pretend unsupported assertion
> makes something so.
The assembled Marxian "masses" will note you avoid the issue and
accordingly continue to flounder.
>
> Once again, Watson the knave provides no rationale for why he
> disagrees with Bohm-Bawerk about the role of the supposed
> "contradiction" in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
You provided it. Unless you manufatured the quote from Kolakowski.
>
> "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
> and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
> be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
> the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
> manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", _Karl Marx and the Close of
> His System_
>
> If one understands and accepts Kolakowski, one understands that
> the "error" Bohm-Bawerk mentions above does not exist. Thus, I
> should think it would be moot to seek to "discover...the point at
> which the [non-existent] error made its way into the system and
> the manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
Dishonest. Get it together, Robert. I agree with Kolakowski! He amazes
me. He's simply brilliant. He's not the only brilliant Pole who has
addressed these subjects either. If you are interested in the subject I
can assist in the beginings of your education.
>
> Furthermore, Bohm-Bawerk, as I have pointed out before, does not
> actually explore how Marx developed his system. He simply could
> not because he did not have access to the primary texts now
> available. These texts include, for example, _The Economic and
> Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844_, _The German Ideology_, _The
> Grundrisse_, and _Theories of Surplus Value_. So, on that score,
> Bohm-Bawerk's work is outdated.
Have at it with your argument that Marx erred in _Kapital_ and
corrected himself elsewhere. Haha.
>
> Bohm-Bawerk's investigation of the question of the "contradiction"
> is also rendered obsolete by the later work of mathematical
> economists, as I've pointed out.
Oh, it's still an issue with you? You didn't accept Kolakowski? Well, I
do.
>
> Since I've never defended Hilferding's response to Bohm-Bawerk,
> have no inclination to defend Hilferding's response,
Overall Hilferding's response is similar to yours and accordingly is
defective in the same ways. You probably haven't read Hilferding but if
you do you will understand that one doesn't rebut specific criticisms
of any doctrine by simply refering back to the subject doctrine for
authority. (See Kolakowski's critique of Hilferding's defense of Marx
at page 290 of Vol. II)
have
> already pointed out post-Kolakowski empirical tests of the
> labor theory of value, and am not exactly enthusiastic about
> Marx's theory of value (see URL in my sig), Watson the knave's
> remaining comments have little relevance to my views, however much
> Watson the knave might like to pretend that his non sequiturs
> are an example of "discipline".
I hereby formally call upon you to reject Marx's theory of value (the
one about which you are not exactly enthusiastic) or to explain in
English what it is that prevents you from breaking free of it. BTW,
irrespective of his notebooks, Marx was not a mathematical economist.
And _Kapital_ is almost empty of empirical data.
>
> By the way, I believe Kolakowski's work is much better than Watson
> the knave makes it seem. For example, unlike Watson the knave,
> Kolakowski knows enough to first set out a view before criticizing
> it.
Above I have set out a summary of Bohm-Bawark's views. I agree with
them. You have yet to actually address them. And no honest man who is
"not exactly enthusiastic about
> Marx's theory of value" would have written your Marxian LTV analysis without a paragraph by paragraph analysis of its validity. You're a religionist, Robert, and you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
>
> Will Watson the knave ever explain what he takes Marx's
> theory of value to be? Will he ever contrast and compare his
> view with Bohm-Bawerk's or mine?
My view is Bohm-Bawark's and Kolakowsi's. They are on the record here.
The problem is that you are afraid to address them directly. I've
concluded that for all your quantitative hateur you are at root an
ideological fundamentalist, a religionist. Dreamscape, indeed.
Of course not, for that
> would be to engage in rational discussion, and Watson the
> cowardly knave is incapable, uninterested, and unwilling to
> engage in rational discussion.
I've made "my" argument in three numbered paragraphs. We shall see how
responsive and rational you are.
HW
Robert Vienneau
"Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > In article <1133108636.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > > > >> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the
> > > > >> supposed
> > > > >> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> > > > >> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> > > > >> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> > > > >> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
> There is no paragraph above in which you "talk about two facets of
> Bohm-Bawark's argument".
Consider a statement of the form "X is ignorant that p." Watson the
knave says that when one asserts such a statement, one is not talking
about p. It's not like Watson the knave is putting forth a distinction
between use and mention. Watson the knave is just obviously ridiculous.
> [Stupidity - deleted. ]
> > > And as I've said
> > > before, if Kolakowski denies that Vol. I and III of Kapital
> > > contradict each other, that's good enough for me at least for these
> > > purposes.
> >
> > "Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
> > various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
> > demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
> > these in the first volume of Capital , it was for methodological
> > reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
> > same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
> > between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
> > average rate of profit."
> > -- Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
> > (Book 1) , Chapter XIII, Section 6.
> >
> > In other words, Kolakowski says Bohm-Bawerk is mistaken on one of
> > the subjects under discussion in the post to which Watson the knave
> > is pretending to respond. So is Watson the knave stupid or lying
> > with the above thread title?
> Here is the simplist, most condensed gist of Bohm-Bawark's central
> arguments:
>
> 1. Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively.
>
> 2. What Marx "knew" and whether there was a contradiction between Vols.
> 1 and 3 isn't the question. Marx did not and could not ascertain the
> "quantitative importance of value" in relation to the myriad other
> factors.
>
> 3. Therefore, the suggestion "that value governs the movement of prices
> and social relations is both arbitrary (because itis not clear on what
> ground we are asked to believe thata value is determined by
> labour-time) and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to
> explain the movement of prices, still less to foresee it."
But the above doesn't explain why Watson the knave rejects Bohm-Bawerk's
view that the demonstration of the supposed "contradiction" in Marx
is necessary to Bohm-Bawerk's argument. So Watson the knave
doesn't fairly summarize Bohm-Bawerk's argument. Nor does he
address the obvious objection to his summary in the post to which
he pretends to respond.
> [Stupidities about non-existence photos of naked ladies - deleted.]
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
> > Once again, Watson the knave provides no rationale for why he
> > disagrees with Bohm-Bawerk about the role of the supposed
> > "contradiction" in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> You provided it. Unless you manufatured the quote from Kolakowski.
Watson the knave simply cannot read. Consider the following quote:
"Marx of course knew that prices are determined in practice by
various factors, including labour productivity, supply and
demand, and the average rate of profit. If he disregarded
these in the first volume of _Capital_, it was for methodological
reasons and not because he thought value and price were the
same thing; thus he cannot be reproached with inconsistency as
between Volume I and Volume III, which deals inter alia with the
average rate of profit."
-- Leszek Kolakowski, _Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders
(Book 1)_, Chapter XIII, Section 6.
The above paragraph does not say that Bohm-Bawerk's (unjustified)
reproach - that volumes 1 and 3 are inconsistent - is necessary to
Bohm-Bawerk's argument. Nor does it say that Bohm-Bawerk's
(unjustified) reproach is not necessary to Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
The above quote from Kolakowski is simply silent on the role of the
supposed "contradiction" in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
Here's what Bohm-Bawerk himself says about that role:
"The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
NECESSARY stage... of a ... criticism... "
-- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", Karl Marx and the Close of
His System
Watson the knave provides no rationale for why he disagrees with
Bohm-Bawerk about the role of the supposed "contradiction" in
Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
> > "The evidence that an author has contradicted himself may be a
> > NECESSARY stage, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of a fruitful
> > and well-directed criticism... A firmly rooted system can only
> > be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision
> > the point at which the error made its way into the system and the
> > manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> > -- Bohm-Bawerk, "Chapter Four", Karl Marx and the Close of
> > His System
> >
> > If one understands and accepts Kolakowski, one understands that
> > the "error" Bohm-Bawerk mentions above does not exist. Thus, I
> > should think it would be moot to seek to "discover...the point at
> > which the [non-existent] error made its way into the system and
> > the manner in which it spread and branched itself out."
> Dishonest.
Watson the knave presents no argument whatsoever. The above
one-word statement is simply irrelevant and unfounded.
I think I will retain the following silliness:
> Get it together, Robert. I agree with Kolakowski! He amazes
> me. He's simply brilliant. He's not the only brilliant Pole who has
> addressed these subjects either. If you are interested in the subject I
> can assist in the beginings of your education.
Some of those I've read on Marx or Marxism happen to be Polish. Their
ethnic background, though, is of no matter.
> > Furthermore, Bohm-Bawerk, as I have pointed out before, does not
> > actually explore how Marx developed his system. He simply could
> > not because he did not have access to the primary texts now
> > available. These texts include, for example, The Economic and
> > Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 , The German Ideology , The
> > Grundrisse , and Theories of Surplus Value . So, on that score,
> > Bohm-Bawerk's work is outdated.
> Have at it with your argument that Marx erred in Kapital and
> corrected himself elsewhere. Haha.
Watson the knave just cannot echo out what he reads. My paragraph
above makes no statement about whether or not there is an error in
_Capital_. Nor does it assert or deny that Marx's texts other
than _Capital_ disagree with _Capital_.
Again, if one wants to study how some doctrine "made its
way into [Marx's] system and the manner in which it spread and
branched itself out", one will not find any such non-obsolete
discussion in Bohm-Bawerk. Bohm-Bawerk simply could not discuss
such an issue adequately since he did not have access to the
primary texts now available.
> > Bohm-Bawerk's investigation of the question of the "contradiction"
> > is also rendered obsolete by the later work of mathematical
> > economists, as I've pointed out.
> Oh, it's still an issue with you? You didn't accept Kolakowski? Well, I
> do.
Watson the knave is simply pretending to respond. The later work
of mathematical economists renders Bohm-Bawerk's investigation of
the question of the "contradiction" obsolete.
> > Since I've never defended Hilferding's response to Bohm-Bawerk,
> > have no inclination to defend Hilferding's response,
> [ Debatable, false, and stupid irrelevancies - deleted. ]
> > have
> > already pointed out post-Kolakowski empirical tests of the
> > labor theory of value, and am not exactly enthusiastic about
> > Marx's theory of value (see URL in my sig), Watson the knave's
> > remaining comments have little relevance to my views, however much
> > Watson the knave might like to pretend that his non sequiturs
> > are an example of "discipline".
> I hereby formally call upon you to reject Marx's theory of value (the
> one about which you are not exactly enthusiastic) or to explain in
> English what it is that prevents you from breaking free of it.
The above is just stupid. Watson has no business giving orders.
I expect if scholars are around a millenium from now, some will be
be providing expositions of Marx's theory of value - sort of like
my FAQ - just like some scholars of today provide expositions of
points in Plato. I see no requirement for such scholars to offer
their personnel views, in the same place and time, on the doctrines
which they are explaining.
> [ Debatable irrelevancies - deleted. ]
> > By the way, I believe Kolakowski's work is much better than Watson
> > the knave makes it seem. For example, unlike Watson the knave,
> > Kolakowski knows enough to first set out a view before criticizing
> > it.
> Above I have set out a summary of Bohm-Bawark's views. I agree with
> them. You have yet to actually address them.
Suppose Watson the knave's comment was a sequitur. Apparently Watson
the knave says he is first setting out a view before criticizing it.
Whose view is he setting out? He says he is summarizing Bohm-Bawerk's
view (although his summary is just mistaken). So if his comment
was actually a sequitur, he must intend to criticize Bohm-Bawerk's
views next. But Watson the knave says he has no criticism.
In other words, Watson the knave is just pretending to respond to
my text.
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
> > Will Watson the knave ever explain what he takes Marx's
> > theory of value to be? Will he ever contrast and compare his
> > view with Bohm-Bawerk's or mine?
> My view is Bohm-Bawark's and Kolakowsi's. They are on the record here.
> The problem is that you are afraid to address them directly.
Once again, Watson the knave is only pretending to respond to my
text. If Watson the knave wants me to offer an opinion on the
validity of Marx's theory of value further than I already have, he
should first summarize that theory and contrast and compare his
understanding with the understanding of that theory put forth in
my texts.
I don't have to mention I am under no obligation to reply to such
a post because, as all experience shows, Watson the knave will
never produce such a post.
> [ Stupidity - deleted. ]
I retain my conclusion. Watson the cowardly knave is incapable,
uninterested, and unwilling to engage in rational discussion.
--
Hunter Watson
Robert Vienneau wrote:
> In article <1133211271....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Vienneau wrote:
> > > In article <1133108636.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Hunter Watson" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Robert Vienneau wrote:
>
> > > > > >> As a matter of fact, Watson the knave doesn't know what the
> > > > > >> supposed
> > > > > >> contradiction that Bohm-Bawerk identified is. Nor does he know
> > > > > >> what role it plays in Bohm-Bawerk's argument.
>
> > > > > >> Note the above paragraph talks about two facets of Bohm-Bawerk's
> > > > > >> argument. Watson the knave is ignorant of both facets.
>
> > There is no paragraph above in which you "talk about two facets of
> > Bohm-Bawark's argument".
>
> Consider a statement of the form "X is ignorant that p." Watson the
> knave says that when one asserts such a statement, one is not talking
> about p. It's not like Watson the knave is putting forth a distinction
> between use and mention. Watson the knave is just obviously ridiculous.
You are unbearably tiresome, a crashing bore. When you have
demonstrated an ability to deal with Eugen Bohm-Bawark and Leszek
Kolakowski, and accordingly are willing to be on point with their
humble acolyte, Hunter Watson, you can demonstrate it here on apst. In
the mean time you are not worth responding to.
All the best,
Hunter Watson
Bert Byfield
> gracefully when your are totally outgunned in every department,
> including spelling.
For you to know that, it would have to happen first. Back to the peanut
gallery with you!
Hunter Watson
Bert, do you re-read what you write here, you know, to correct typos,
etc? I can't imagine doing that. It's as if these guys don't actually
want this stuff to be ephemera even though their ideological survival
depends on it.
HW
Hunter Watson
But both Kolakowski and Shumpeter rejected Marxian analysis, so what
you do here suffers terribly from your passion for twisting context in
order to make what you see as debating points. They certainly did not
conclude that in anything like an overall sense Bohm-Bawark was
mistaken about the flaws in the LTV and that Marx is vindicated. They
aren't saying that generally, on the merits, the Marxian LTV is correct
and that accordingly "Bohn-Bawark is Mistaken". No, those are words you
attempt to put into their mouths so as to confuse the readership.
"The latter ('Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy'), whilst rejecting
the Marxian analysis, still envisages capitalism as moving by its own
internal forces towards Schumpeter's vision of a socialist society."
That vision is, by the way, very conservative in nature.
I'll see what I can find about Baumol.
Hunter Watson
This gets better and better. Professor Baumol is an "entrepreneurship"
expert and proponent:
"William J. Baumol is the 2003 winner of the International Award for
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Throughout his career
Baumol has urged the profession to pay attention to the instrumental
role of entrepreneurship in economic renewal and growth. At the same
time he has insisted that economists continue to use their usual tool
box when the purview of analysis is extended to entrepreneurship.
Hence, Baumol can be characterized as a revolutionary from within. In
this article we present and discuss Baumol's research contribution in
the areas of entrepreneurship and small business economics, notably
from a growth perspective. In addition to placing his work in these
areas into the wider context of his full contribution, we emphasize
Baumol's findings that growth cannot be explained by the accumulation
of various factors of production per se; human creativity and
productive entrepreneurship are needed to combine the inputs in
profitable ways. As a result, an institutional environment that
encourages productive entrepreneurship and human experimentation
becomes the ultimate determinant of economic growth."
"Bohm-Bawark Mistaken," indeed!