So then you got interested in synthesizing or bringing together Marxian and Keynesian elements to macroeconomics? I had a colleague, Michael Ambrosi, who was a definite Keynesian and we did many things together, and so Keynes became more and more of interest to me. Since I had not learned macro at all, this was a very hard time for me. In addition, I had to teach macroeconomics in Berlin. But in fact my Habilitation thesis was on Marx, Sraffa and Leontief, and he was nevertheless very supportive in this respect. I think Klaus Jaeger basically hoped that I would skip Marx and do other more Keynesian type of research. You talked about Marx already and about the three volumes of Capital, but when we read your books or the titles of your books, it seems it was not only Marx you became interested in, but also Keynes and Schumpeter. So the adjustment to economics was not an easy one.Īnd who were the economists who impressed you most, making this transition. My mathematical doctoral thesis was written in little more than a year, but the Habilitation thesis needed 5 years in Berlin to be completed. He was very open-minded and helped me to get the position of an assistant researcher at his institute in Berlin in 1975.
#ECONOMIX MICHAEL GOODWIN PDF DOWNLOAD FREE#
I went to Elmar Wolfstetter and later on to Malte Faber, and Faber brought me into contact with Klaus Jaeger, who was just moving to the Free University of Berlin.
#ECONOMIX MICHAEL GOODWIN PDF DOWNLOAD PROFESSIONAL#
What was next in your professional career?įirst of all I tried to contact people in economics – I was still in Riemannian Geometry – people who could offer me an assistant position in economic theory. I realized that this was a very good proposal and started writing a longer paper on the transformation problem in joint production economies. But Carl Christian von Weizsäcker in a private conversation on a trip from Bielefeld to Bonn suggested to me that I should not take equal proportions, but use relative sales values. And funnily enough I formulated a solution where I disentangled joint production into equal value proportions. And I started writing on Marx, because the problem of joint production within the labour theory of value was becoming interesting to me. How did you move on in your professional career? Did you get involved more and more in applying your mathematical tools to economics?įirst I had to learn more matrix algebra, which I had of course dealt with in my undergraduate studies, but not followed up. It was a very interesting seminar, but at the end Egbert Dierker concluded that its aim was not really reached, because many of the participating mathematicians became interested in Marx and not so much in Debreu. Carl Christian von Weizsäcker participated in this seminar, as well as important members of the department of economics at Bonn University. He responded, ‘Well, we have a much better theory of value’, and so we decided to have a joint seminar, reading Bródy on Marxian labour theory of value and Debreu's theory of value. It also happened then that I told Werner Hildenbrand, Professor of Economics at the economics department in Bonn, about my interests in Marx. To a certain degree I lost interest in mathematics at that time, though in particular Riemannian Geometry and its application to Hilbert Manifolds was a very beautiful theory for me. In Volume III I had to realize that labour values are not immediately regulating the exchange ratios of commodities. And Volume III was of course a bit of a surprise to me, because everybody was so focused on the labour theory of value as presented in Volume I. But Marx was so fascinating that I decided on the next holiday trip to Corsica to read also Volumes II and III of Capital. We started reading Marx in 1972, when I still was assistant at the University of Bonn in the department of mathematics. Well, the – may I say so – leading guy in the residential community I was living in proposed to read Marx's Capital, Volume I. So therefore our first question would be: How did you become an economist?
Riemann and Hilbert are not economists but mathematicians. Your first major work was on ‘Riemannian Hilbert Manifolds’. He received an Opus Magnum Grant from the Fritz Thyssen/Volkswagen Foundations in 2007–2008. He was on numerous occasions Visiting Professor at the University of Technology, Sydney, and was invited in 2006 as Theodor Heuss Professor to the New School for Social Research, New York. He has extensively published on classical economics and heterodox macrodynamical model building. He holds a PhD degree in Mathematics and a Habilitation degree in Economics. Peter Flaschel is Professor Emeritus at Bielefeld University, Germany.