Profesor Heinz D. Kurz.
Profesor Titular de Economía, Universidad de Graz, Alemania.
Departamento de Economía de la Universidad de University of Graz,
Director del Centro Schumpeter Graz (GSC).
Del Lunes 7 al viernes 11 de noviembre se realizó en México, organizado por en la Facultad de Economía-UNAM, en la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana- UAM-Xochimilco y El Colegio de México, el Congreso Internacional: Crisis de la Teoría Económica y Políticas Alternativas ante la Crisis Global con la participación de Mássimo Pivetti (Italia), Alejandro Fiorito (Argentina), Gary Mongiovi (EEUU), Heinz Kurz (Austria), Aldo Barba (Italia), Amit Bahduri (India), Franklin Serrano (Brasil) y Eladio Febrero (España). Toda la actividad fue coordinada por el Profesor Alfonso Vadillo Bello.
Presentaremos aqui la Conferencia del Profesor Heinz Kurz y su abstract.
2da parte
3ra parte
4ta parte
5ta parte
6ta parte
Preguntas
1
2
3
Abstract
Viewpoints of Schumpeter, Keynes and Sraffa
The paper discusses alternative and compelementary views as regards the Instability of Capitalism. First, the classical and the marginalist approach to the theory of value and distribution and to output as a whole will be counterposed and a summary account of Sraffa's main criticisms of the marginalist theory provided. The route by which Sraffa arrived at his results, which sheds additional light on his critical task, will be sketched briefly, using Sraffa’s unpublished work. Obviously, only a small part of his respective work can be surveyed. Then the implications of these criticisms with regard to his view of the working of the economic system will be drawn out. The emphasis is on the determination of output as whole and employment. According to Sraffa the capitalist economy is not the crisis-free system possessed of an endogenous mechanism of self-regulation as it is described by marginalist theory. Then Sraffa's approach is compared to that of Keynes in the /General Theory/, on the one hand, and Schumpeter in the /Theory of Economic Development/, on the other. It is argued that all three authors rejected Say's law, the marginalist idea of undiluted consumer sovereignty, the idea that savings determine investment, the concept of a dichotomy between the real and the monetary sphere and the concept that capitalist economic systems could develop smoothly. As Schumpeter put it in one of his writings: "Cycles are not, like tonsils, separable things that might be treated by themselves, but are, like the beat of the heart, of the essence of the organism that displays them." The paper concludes with some critical remarks on the so-called "New Classical Economics", championed by Robert Lucas and other Chicago economists.
The paper discusses alternative and compelementary views as regards the Instability of Capitalism. First, the classical and the marginalist approach to the theory of value and distribution and to output as a whole will be counterposed and a summary account of Sraffa's main criticisms of the marginalist theory provided. The route by which Sraffa arrived at his results, which sheds additional light on his critical task, will be sketched briefly, using Sraffa’s unpublished work. Obviously, only a small part of his respective work can be surveyed. Then the implications of these criticisms with regard to his view of the working of the economic system will be drawn out. The emphasis is on the determination of output as whole and employment. According to Sraffa the capitalist economy is not the crisis-free system possessed of an endogenous mechanism of self-regulation as it is described by marginalist theory. Then Sraffa's approach is compared to that of Keynes in the /General Theory/, on the one hand, and Schumpeter in the /Theory of Economic Development/, on the other. It is argued that all three authors rejected Say's law, the marginalist idea of undiluted consumer sovereignty, the idea that savings determine investment, the concept of a dichotomy between the real and the monetary sphere and the concept that capitalist economic systems could develop smoothly. As Schumpeter put it in one of his writings: "Cycles are not, like tonsils, separable things that might be treated by themselves, but are, like the beat of the heart, of the essence of the organism that displays them." The paper concludes with some critical remarks on the so-called "New Classical Economics", championed by Robert Lucas and other Chicago economists.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario