Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?

From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Wed Feb 25 2004 - 07:49:16 EST

-- Are there any Marxian theorists from a non-"Grossmanian"
       tradition which assume Say's Law?

There is the Duménil's book "Marx et Keynes face à la crise", in French
(1983?). I think he doesn't mention Grossmann's book, but it is a very
interesting book.


----- Original Message -----
From: "A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@OPEN.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?

> Jerry.
> This is something that I am currrently grappling with, so it is very
useful for you to raise it. My reading of the Grossmanite defence against
the Say's Law charge is that Grossman assumes that prices are equivalent to
values, as in Capital vs I and II, and therefore supply is assumed equal to
demand. Now the same charge has been levelled against the Marxian
reproduction schema that Marx assumes that supply and demand are in balance,
and therefore Marx assumes Say's Law to hold. The reply might be that Marx
considers the reproduction schema as a special extreme in which balanced
growth takes place; he explores the unlikely conditions under which supply
and demand are in balance. By demonstrating how diffficult it is to achieve
this balance Marx in fact falsifies Say's Law, showing that supply does not
automatically create demand. Does this seem a sensible interpretation?
> Grossmann also assumes that supply and demand are in balance but then
develops the reproduction
> schemes with a rising organic composition of capital to show that they
break down. Now the point that could be made here is that for Grossman the
breakdown is not due to the falsification of Say's Law. Supply and demand
are assumed to be in balance throughout Grossman's simulation. But he
introduces an addditional reason - as if Marx's falsification of Say's Law
wasn't powerful enough - as to why expanded reproduction is unlikely over an
extended period: namely, the law of the falling rate of profit. Issues of
where the money and demand comes from for extended reproduction to take
place are relegated to the heretic backwaters of underconsumptionism - all
that matters is the SUPPLY of surplus value which dries up under the falling
rate of profit.
> Any comments gratefully received, or relevant references I should check
> Andrew.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald A. Levy [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM]
> Sent: Tue 24/02/2004 12:57
> Cc:
> Subject: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?
> John Rosenthal (1999) "Addressing the Dogma of Growth" in
> Paul Zarembka ed. _Research in Political Economy_ 19, asserts
> that Grossman and "Grossmanian" theories (including that of
> list member Anwar Shaikh) assume "Say's Law".  Rosenthal
> makes the claim that Grossman's theory _implicitly_ assumes
> "Say's Law"  even though he acknowledges that Grossman
> _explicitly_  rejected Say's Law.
> --  Do others agree that Grossman's theory implicitly assumed
>        Say's Law?
> -- Do "Grossmanian theories" assume Say's Law?
> -- Are there any Marxian theorists from a non-"Grossmanian"
>        tradition which assume Say's Law?
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EST