Leave a Reply
—– look inside —– $5.93 / 14.99
—– look inside —– $15.99
Now available as a Kindle – $4.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—– look inside —– $5.99 / $11.00
—– look inside —– $9.99
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
This paper is TOO GOOD, too important substantively to be allowed to remain in its current form. A thorough, careful proof-reading, editing and revision, preferably using a person who is truly proficient in proper (academic) English is in order. There are too many “pearls” (spelling, grammar, syntax, usage, etc) in it for it to be taken as seriously as it high substantive quality deserve. If requested, I can provide at least 20 instances of profoundly problematic text. Do this NOW.
Of course, it would have been nice had I, myself, proof-read and revised/corrected my own comment. Case in point, therefore.
This paper is too good, too important, substantively to be allowed to remain in its current form. Thorough, careful proof-reading, editing and revision are in order, preferably with the help of a person who is proficient in proper (academic) English.
As written/published, it contains simply too many “pearls” (spelling, grammar, syntax, usage, etc) to be taken as seriously as its high substantive quality deserves.
I volunteer to act as anonymous (if necessary) editor, if the authors are so inclined.
My comments refer to the following paper: Assessing the impact of austerity in (sic) the Greek economy: a sectoral financial balances approach
Nasos Koratzanis and Christos Pierros
“Marx and Engels … allegation of theft directed at the owners of capital for illegally appropriating a share of the “value.”” (p80)
In his mature work Marx identified the process of exploitation not of theft. The owner of the means of production buys labour power at its proper exchange value – the value of the basket of consumption goods through which they reproduce their labour power from day to day and from generation to generation. He will then be able to exploit that labour power as concrete labour, which will generate more value than it has cost him – surplus value.
Marx derided idealist like Proudon who believed that capitalism was based on theft.
Richard Smith’s paper on China was fantastic. I’d differ with him only on China’s prospects – “growth” as it has been done will lead to the dire outcomes he mentions, but growth can occur in an entirely different form, one that does not leave millions unemployed, if it is focused on building an entirely renewable energy infrastructure. The political impediments seem daunting, however; what does Smith think about the anti-corruption drive, and whether Xi’s centralization of power could be used to steamroll recalcitrant local officials?
I also thought Richard Smith’s paper on China was outstanding. There is no harder read today than trying to understand what is unfolding in that society and its economy. With worldwide implications for global warming and other environmental issues. What I’ve liked about Smith’s work is that he doesn’t sugar coat anything. He delivers the type of briefing all heads of state ought to want to have waiting on their desk’s at 7:00 AM.
The one thing that might slow down China is when they actually run out of wood. You can not build cities without it.
All measures to reduce China’s pollution should be openly discussed as much as possible along with –as a part of– discussion about the same measures to be taken in this country (U.S.A.)for the same purpose, to reduce pollution. Not politicians, but published scientists should establish safe CO2 reduction goals for both countries and establish procedures for committed environmentalists to implement them right away.
Richard:
It is a good piece and I am happy you have sent it to me to read. I agree with your comments and descriptions on China’s ecology. If I had not been there numerous times, I would have found it hard to believe. I have seen the acres of empty building build near Shenzhen and Jingjiang. Been in Shanghai traveling during its worst air pollution day. It is a problem and China’s Catch – 22.
The wording and punctuation is fine. I have my own peculiarities in how things should be written. Nothing you have here detracts from the pints you are making unless you are a snob.
Regards,
Bill (Angry Bear Blog)