Marx is no Fred Astaire.

Fred Astaire, 1941. [A]

While I don't agree with everything he writes, I can honestly say I am a fan of Prof. Robert Paul Wolff.

His writings are interesting, accessible and enjoyable and he has an extraordinary sense of humour (often, self-deprecating, too).

Wondering about Marx's unusual literary style, particularly in Das Kapital, full of metaphors and literary allusions, drawing on thousands of years of Western literature, and abounding in religious echoes, Wolff concluded that it has not gained Marx many readers among later economists:

"Needless to say, this [Wolff's own view] was not then, nor is it today, the common view of Marx's ideas and their literary form. The majority opinion, as I observed in Moneybags [Must be so Lucky, one of Wolff's books], has always been what might be thought of as the public health or childhood polio interpretation of Capital. According to this reading, Marx as a young man contracted a nearly fatal case of the particularly virulent strain of Hegelism that raged pandemically throughout Germany during the third and fourth decades of the nineteenth century.  Although he somehow managed to survive the illness, he was intellectually crippled for life. Hence it is simply bad manners to mock him as he drags himself painfully, awkwardly from concept to concept in the realm of Ideas. Rather we ought to marvel that he can traverse the distance from the premises to the conclusion of an argument, and we ought scarcely to expect him to ascend a ratiocinatio polysyllogistica like Fred Astaire tip-tapping his way up a flight of stairs. The British version of this rather curious literary theory, put forward most notably by the doyenne of English Marxists, Joan Robinson, simply has it that Marx was German, and hence was unable to achieve the clarity and simplicity of Locke, Hume, Bentham, Smith, or Ricardo".

Beyond the hilarity, what Wolff writes goes a long way into explaining this from an eminent economist like Prof. Mark Thoma (with whom I often agree, whose blog I visit frequently and, frankly, enjoy):

"I understand the idea the Marginal Product (MP) theory is an apologetic for the distribution of income within the neoclassical model. But for me, the important question is why laborers have not received the share of income that the MP theory of distribution says they should have received. What went wrong? Why, relative to the MP benchmark, did too much flow to the top, and too little to the working class (and it seems to me you have to go beyond skill-based technical change to answer this question because SBTC seems quite consistent with MP theory)? There may very well be a theory of exploitation here that a Marxist can love, but why not cast it in these terms, i.e. why not explain why income flows have been distorted? Why not base it upon a MP theory of value rather than the incorrect LTV, and then explain how exploitation -- distortions to income flows toward the top -- works within this framework?"

So, we have that MP is an apologetic for unequal income distribution and more importantly fails to explain why the labour share of national incomes flows to the top, but Marx's LTV and exploitation theories, which answer these more important questions, are incorrect, and should, instead, be based on MP.

And, let's be fair, neither is Thoma alone, nor is his case the most extreme; further, to his credit, he doesn't try to spin a clear contradiction into some "deeper" truth. God knows that many, after stumbling like that, don't have the moral fortitude.

And, no, before you ask, I don't find Marx an easy read. To me, it's a challenge that I try hard to face... That's the difference.

Damn you, Karl Marx! Why did you have to write so much and about economics, sociology, philosophy, political science, politics and history, at the same time, and, on top, sprinkle everything with artsy references, literary criticism and other heady stuff?


Image Credits:
[A] "Studio publicity portrait for film 'You'll Never Get Rich'." (And he means you). Public domain. Wikipedia.

Update:
Another comment on Prof. Wolff's work: "And Now for Something Completely Different", by Matías Vernengo.

Merkel, Kohl and Rajoy.

A political funding scandal in Germany started in November, 1999, when the district court of Augsburg ordered the arrest of former CDU (conservative, centre-right) treasurer Walter Leisler Kiep in connection with alleged dealings with lobbyist, fundraiser, arms dealer and businessman Karlheinz Schreiber, fugitive at the time.

Kiep admitted to receiving an illegal donation in 1991 on behalf of the CDU, headed at the time by former chancellor Helmut Kohl.

Helmut Kohl. [A]

Kohl denied any knowledge; while his protégé, Angela Merkel ("mein Mädchen", "my girl", Kohl affectionately called her) demanded a quick and sweeping investigation.

The investigations, conducted with typical Germanic efficiency, were quick indeed. Kiep and other CDU leaders would regularly disclose information detailing Kohl's involvement.

Sometimes, by himself, sometimes with Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU chairman) another of his protégés, Kohl would initially deny the information, just to recant a few days later.

December 22, 1999: Merkel wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung: "Kohl has harmed the party". After asking the CDU to distance itself from Kohl, Kohl's former girl writes: "The party must therefore learn to walk by itself, confidently, to continue without its old warhorse, as Helmut Kohl has frequently called himself". (See here in German, my translation)

The ties with the "old warhorse" severed, Schäuble was left holding loose reins, only.

February 16, 2000: Schäuble resigns as CDU chair and parliamentary leader. A few weeks later, as a reward for her moral fortitude and leadership, Merkel went on to replace Schäuble as CDU chair.

Wolfgang Schäuble, left; Angela Merkel, right. [B][C]

----------

February 4, 2013: German bankers' money at stake, chancellor Merkel provides her moral support to Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy, who has been accused of corruption in his own country in a modern day public financing scandal reminiscent of the old German scandal:

"Germany had 'great respect and great admiration' for Madrid's economic reforms, Merkel said. Strict austerity measures and the nationalizations of several of Spain's largest banks had helped put the debt-stricken country back on track. These steps would have a positive effect on Spain's future, she added.
" 'We have a trustworthy relationship', Merkel said, pledging further support to the eurozone partner". (See here)

No calls for quick and sweeping investigations. No severing ties with "old warhorses".

Image Credits:
[A] Helmut Kohl. Public domain image. Wikipedia.
[B] Wolfgang Schäuble. Public domain image. Wikipedia.
[C] Angela Merkel. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany licence. Wikipedia. Author: Armin Linnartz. My use of the file does not in any way suggests its author endorses me or my use of the work.

Primeval Manufacturing.

Ever since a kid I've been interested in science. It's a long story and someday I might even tell a bit of it (believe it or not, is has to do with my Dad, Neil Armstrong, Isaac Asimov and Gerard K. O'Neill).

Yet, I almost never post about science. Maybe that should change.

The following is a fascinating video, part of the evidence provided in support of the claims contained in an also fascinating 2009 paper by Sanz, Call and Morgan[1]:

I don't suppose I need to comment how powerfully evocative the video is, in a general sense.

But beyond that general effect, to me it is suggestive for at least two additional reasons; one of which can be gleaned here (perhaps to the surprise of most):

"Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength, and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness. The price which he pays must always be the same, whatever may be the quantity of goods which he receives in return for it. Of these, indeed, it may sometimes purchase a greater and sometimes a smaller quantity; but it is their value which varies, not that of the labour which purchases them. At all times and places, that is dear which it is difficult to come at, or which it costs much labour to acquire; and that cheap which is to be had easily, or with very little labour. Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only." (A. Smith. The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter V. My emphasis)

Any comments?


References:
[1] Crickette Sanz, Josep Call and David Morgan. 2009. Design complexity in termite-fishing tools of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Biol. Lett. published online 4 March 2009. here

Stigler, Ricardo and LTV

George J. Stigler (1911-1991, 1982 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel winner), together with his lifelong friend, Milton Friedman, is considered one of the founders of the Chicago School of Economics.

As such, Stigler has probably been endlessly accused by non-mainstream economists and critics of mainstream economics as a dogmatic, closed-minded fellow.

And, you know, he may well deserve that. As it happens, however, it seems Stigler was also interested in the history of economic thought.

In what for me was a rather pleasant surprise, in a paper, with the slightly ironic title "Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value" [1], Stigler had these generous words to say about Ricardo:

"The basic reason Ricardo's theory is often misinterpreted is that it was often misinterpreted in the past. If a theory once acquires an established meaning, each generation of economists bequeaths this meaning to the next, and it is almost impossible for a famous theory to get a fresh hearing. Perhaps one hearing is all that a theory is entitled to, but one may plead that Ricardo deserves at least a rehearsing--his theory is relatively more widely misunderstood today than it was in his lifetime. One can build a strong case that the modern economist need not be acquainted with Ricardo's work, but there is no case for his being acquainted with an imposter".

Mind you, exactly the same could be said about Marx (as I bear witness) and Stigler did not mention him. Stigler's generosity, I guess, had its limits.

Ironically, too, many critics of mainstream don't seem that much better, either.

----------

And, it seems Stigler had a rather mischievous side, for he closes his paper with the following footnote:

"Very occasionally a theory, unlike a dog, has its second day, as when Keynes persuaded many economists of the error of the century-long tradition that Malthus' criticisms of the full employment assumption of Ricardo were invalid. The example is the more remarkable because the tradition was correct".

Unfair? Perhaps, but I actually liked that parting shot. For a change, it's nice to hear that applied to others beyond the usual suspects.

References:
[1] George J. Stigler, "Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value". The American Economic Review, Vol. 48. No. 3 (Jun, 1958), 357-367.