tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post8126144758855426294..comments2024-03-28T20:47:48.468-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: IDLE THOUGHTSRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-10140171761011170332013-08-12T18:36:50.332-04:002013-08-12T18:36:50.332-04:00You might have been a bit hasty. In reading last y...You might have been a bit hasty. In reading <a href="http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-sunday-sermon.html" rel="nofollow">last year's article</a>, I see comments about how silly is the literal reading of Cain's story but not much much in terms of its "real meaning". Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16993676654908910534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-31161873486816864832013-08-12T13:00:03.625-04:002013-08-12T13:00:03.625-04:00I'd agree on PEDs. The thing about Armstrong ...I'd agree on PEDs. The thing about Armstrong is that many of his top competitors had tested positive over the years. So, if he _hadn't_ used them at all, and still won as much as he did, he would have clearly been the greatest athlete of all time, by a long shot. That seemed unlikely, so it should have always seemed likely that he was using them. If he wasn't such a jerk, both about this and in general, I'd have no real problem with him. Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446428606119200980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81087353651331414342013-08-12T02:19:32.817-04:002013-08-12T02:19:32.817-04:00Reading that article, I was reminded of things you...Reading that article, I was reminded of things you wrote in your book on Marx's economics.<br /><br />I couldn't help smiling to Robinson's alleged philistine attitude towards LTV.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74006601812080703912013-08-11T14:08:21.417-04:002013-08-11T14:08:21.417-04:00Magpie, I read the lengthy exchange about Robinson...Magpie, I read the lengthy exchange about Robinson. Fascinating. A great deal of inside baseball, as it were. I am fascinated to learn that she was afraid of Sraffa. He is one of my real intellectual heroes, as I am sure my postings on this blog have made clear. It is a crime that Robinson did not get the Nobel Prize. On the other hand, considering the list of laureates in Economics, I am not sure one would want to be on the list.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89032990278309885572013-08-11T10:36:01.075-04:002013-08-11T10:36:01.075-04:00I will take a look at it. Believe it or not, Robi...I will take a look at it. Believe it or not, Robinson's book on imperfect competition was the very first piece of formal economics I ever read!! I was twenty, in Oxford on a traveling fellowship, not eager to go talk to my tutor, some chap named Peter Strawson [!!]. I read Robinson, than Chamberlin's book on the same subject, then Samuelson's Economics textbook. Then I bought a little motorcycle and rode it to Rome.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-19394117488824561992013-08-11T08:00:52.978-04:002013-08-11T08:00:52.978-04:00(It's off-topic, so apologies in advance)
Pro...(It's off-topic, so apologies in advance)<br /><br />Prof.<br /><br />I think you may enjoy this article (it's also free of charge, which for me makes it doubly enjoyable!). It's about the "doyenne of English Marxists", Joan Robinson. In essence, Geoff Harcourt's views on Robinson and a variety of subjects, particularly Marx.<br /><br />Talking About Joan Robinson: Geoff Harcourt in Conversation with John King<br />Geoff Harcourt, John King<br />Review of Social Economy<br />Vol. 53, Iss. 1, 1995<br />http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080%2F00346769500000002<br /><br />From the article:<br /><br />Harcourt: "And Joan, partly in retrospect, saw that the thrust of the attack of Imperfect Competition on laissez faire, and capitalism generally, was showing that it was a system of exploitation, because it discredited marginal productivity. As soon as you had imperfect competition, workers got paid less than the value of their marginal product." (page 34)<br /><br />(Prof. Harcourt is a professor of HET and life-long friend of Mrs. Robinson's)Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.com