Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH:NZ


Doug Henwood wrote:

> >What I'm using is very similar to the methodology used by Moseley in his
> >'The Falling Rate of Profit in the Post War United States Economy". I
> >chose this particular approach as the under lying conception of value
> >theory used by Moseley is close to that of Foleywho I have tended to
> >follow in the past.
> Bill, maybe you can answer me on this, since I can't get an answer out of
> Jerry. What does this sort of analysis tell you that the intelligent use of
> bourgeois statistics can't?

One might as well ask: "what does Marxist analysis tell you that the
'intelligent' use of bourgeois philosophy and ideology can't?". 

But, hey, you've got every right to be an "intelligent" bourgeois
statistician. However, bourgeois statistics will NEVER be able to
substitute for Marxist analysis. You might not realize it yet, but
ANALYSIS is important. 

(You've probably also been wondering why Marx "wasted" so much of his life
on "analysis" in _Capital_ when he could have spent more time writing
articles for newspapers based in New York).

Still trying to figure out why Marxists talk about exploitation, Doug?
Perhaps you think exploitation is only an ethical concept which is
incapable of quantification and measurement. How much easier it would be
if we just stopped using Marx's "jargon" and all adapted to the lexicon
and methodologies of marginalist and/or "heterodox" economics. Why don't
you write a story about this in the next issue of the _Liberal Business
Observer_ (LBO).  No doubt, many of your bourgeois patrons will be
reassured.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---