Titlebook: Japanese Discourses on the Marxian Theory of Finance; Kei Ehara Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

寵愛(ài)

挫敗

bifurcate

On Money Capitalists in the Theory of Interest in hoten, 1952, which is critically analyzed in Yoshio Miyake’s essay in Chapter 3?of this collected volume. In this essay in 1958, Uno relates his arguments with the texts of . Vol.?3 and elucidates in detail why he felt necessary to challenge Marx’s view. Comparing Marx and Uno, readers will be able

夾死提手勢(shì)

Interest-Bearing Capital: Response to the Explanation of Kōzō Uno918–1979, Osaka City University) and Tomoyoshi Fujitsuka (1916–1993, Musashi University) as well as that of Kōzō?Uno. Since Uno’s . published in 1950 and 1952 included a number of critical arguments against Marx, it stimulated harsh criticisms from Marxian economists at the time. This Miyake’s essay

Dissonance

How a Theory of Interest Should Be Developed: Answering Yoshio Miyake’s Critique of the Theory of Inlly, Miyake criticized Uno again and Uno answered it, so there are two more essays in relation to this issue. We can assume both Uno and Miyake regarded this issue as important.This essay has an introduction and five sections without titles. Section 1 is an overview of Uno’s question of Marx’s argum

不確定

似少年

Theorizing Bank Capital : Neo-Unoist Approacherms “fictitious capital” and “banking capital” are ambiguous and should be properly counted as part of assets and liabilities, respectively, and the term “bank capital” should be used to refer to the equity capital of the bank. Section 2 will study how the bank capital valorizes itself, providing a

步履蹣跚

Book 2022yet their achievements are hardly known in other languages. .Japanese Discourses?on the Marxian Theory of Finance.?brings together in English?for the first time six core essays essential to the understanding?of the history and development of Japanese Marxian economics. Part I considers the?so-called

散開(kāi)

Jargon

How a Theory of Interest Should Be Developed: Answering Yoshio Miyake’s Critique of the Theory of Inmoney capitalist” does. In Sect. 4, Uno states his idea of using the word “funds” more clearly. The final section is an answer to Miyake’s question on the concept of “capital as an automatically interest-bearing force.”