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

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Feb 28 2004 - 01:28:07 EST

--- "A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@OPEN.AC.UK> wrote:
> 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?
I don't think Say's law denies disproportionality
problem. What it denies is the possibility of a
general glut or overproduction. Cheers, ajit sinha
> 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 out.
> 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

Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 29 2004 - 00:00:02 EST