**Next message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5022] Re: Re: Re: double divrgence"**Previous message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5021] Re: Re: double divrgence"**In reply to:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5015] RE: numerical example!!!"**Next in thread:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5029] RE: numerical example!!!"**Reply:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5029] RE: numerical example!!!"**Reply:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5034] Re: Re: RE: numerical example!!!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Andrew, Thanks for your reply. I think we are making progress. You are right that in my example I assumed the money wage as given rather than the real wage, as in Steedman. I did that to make it easier to solve the system of equations, but I realize now that that distorts the comparison with Steedman. However, I think what my example shows, at least, is that, if the money wage is taken as given, then a given set of physical inputs and outputs and the assumption of "stationery prices" does not uniquely determine the rate of profit. My example shows that, with a given money wage, at least two rates of profit are compatible with the given physical structure and the assumption of "stationery prices" (and we could compute more). The reason why more than one rate of profit is compatible the given physical structure is that we have a system of 3 equations in 5 unknowns (three prices, the wage rate, and the profit rate). A determinate solution is possible only if two additional variables are taken as given. And there are several different options for which two variables should be taken as given. The standard Sraffian method is to take the real wage (or the money wage; e.g. Pasinetti) and one price as given, and then solve for the rate of profit and the remaining (n - 1) prices. In this case, there is indeed a unique rate of profit, as proven by the Perron-Frobenius theorem. However, one can also take the rate of profit and the money wage as given, and then solve for the 3 prices, as I did in my example. In this case, there are an infinite number of rates of profit that are compatible with the given quantities of inputs and outputs. Andrew, do you agree with this? If not, why not? If that point is agreed, then the next question is: does this result still hold when the real wage is taken as given, rather than the money wage? I don't see why not, but unfortunately, the system of equations is more difficult to solve under the assumption of a given real wage. The constant terms drop out and the system becomes homogeneous of degree zero, which is more difficult to solve. I have not been able to solve it by hand and I don't have the software to solve systems of equations. I will get some software soon, and then we shall see whether the result still holds under the assumption of a given real wage. In the meantime, perhaps another listmember who has the software can solve this system of equations for us and let us know the results. Assuming to begin with that the rate of profit = 0.4, the equations are: (1.4) [28 p1+ 56 (5/80 p3)] = 56 p1 (1.4) [16 p1+ 16 (5/80 p3)] = 48 p2 (1.4) [12 p1+ 8 (5/80 p3)] = 8 p3 Please solve for the three prices. And then assume the rate of profit = 0.25, replace the 1.4 in the above equations by 1.25, and solve for the three prices again. Thanks in advance for any help. Logically I don't understand why this system of equations would not be solvable for different rates of profit. This is a system of three equations in three unknowns, which should in principle be solvable. Does anybody see a reason why this system might be solvable? I can't wait to see the results! Comradely, Fred P.S. Andrew said: > In your second example (column 3), the real wage rate isn't even > equalized across sectors any more. (Nor is the money wage rate > equalized any more). Andrew, I don't understand why you think that the money wage rate is not equal across sectors. The money wage rate is assumed = 1 in all sectors. From which it follows that the real wage rate will also be equal across sectors, since the real wage rate = 1 / (price of corn). Thanks for the clarification.

**Next message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5022] Re: Re: Re: double divrgence"**Previous message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5021] Re: Re: double divrgence"**In reply to:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5015] RE: numerical example!!!"**Next in thread:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5029] RE: numerical example!!!"**Reply:**Drewk: "[OPE-L:5029] RE: numerical example!!!"**Reply:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5034] Re: Re: RE: numerical example!!!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST
*