[OPE-L:3850] Re: Re: Re: Rational expectations Marxism

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 02:01:31 EDT

[ show plain text ]

clyder wrote:

> Ajit wronte
> ____________________
> >
> > I think a theory of prices is essentially a static problem. There cannot
> be a
> > dynamic theory of prices, particularly when technological change is taken
> into
> > consideration. You simply cannot have any means of consistent measurement.
> > Ricardo did want to have a theory of prices in a dynamic context of
> technical
> > change. But all the works have shown that this was "will of the wisp".
> Cheers,
> > ajit sinha
> >
> I agree that the transformation problem only makes sense under static
> conditions and the assumption of the actual formation of a uniform rate of
> profit. I also think that in practice under the turbulent conditions of
> technical
> change and demand fluctuations of the real world that one lacks
> the preconditions for the transformation process described in classical
> theories such as Marx and Sraffa to occur.


My own sense, as opposed to all the Sraffians, is that Sraffa would agree more
with you and Joan Robinson than Garegnani on the question of the gravitational
point in the historical time context. Garegnani is absolutely right in
interpreting the whole of classical tradition and Marx on the question of the
long-term gravitational point, but all the evidence that Sraffa also thought so
is extremely tenuous at best. I think Sraffa wanted to get rid of all the
notions of 'force fields'.

> Paul C:
> What I find theoretically inconsistent are attempts by authors like Kliman
> and others to use the conditions of dynamic technical change to criticise
> the Sraffian system whilst retaining the feature of a uniform rate of
> profit.
> If you introduce dynamic technical change one can no longer assume
> profit rate equalisation.


As far as the so-called TSS is concerned, I don't want to revisit the debate
again. But it is clear to me that the whole approach is too childish to be taken
seriously. It simply does not understand the theoretical nature of the
transformation problem. And there is no dynamics in this approach apart from
rhetoric. Cheers, ajit sinha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT