Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital"

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 21:53:30 EDT

Quoting Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>:

> In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in Shaikh 1974 or the
> like, without the excessive stress on the non-equilibrium etc.?

Riccardo, which Shaikh article do you have in mind?  The “iterative”
solution to the transformation, or something else?

Shaikh’s “iterative” solution is not really sequential determination,
because the fundamental givens are still the physical quantities, and
he comes to the same prices of production and rate of profit as
simultaneous determination.

> The TSSI claims that there is no convergence to the Sraffian solution
> but I doubt that, it seems to me that (as the the Austrian Mises
> would do: he too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they simply
> say that the conditions may change between one period and another.

Kliman and McGlone have changed somewhat with respect to this issue.
In their original article, their numerical example does converge to the
simultaneous determination solution (in the 13th period).  In this
case, their interpretation is essentially the same as Shaikh’s
“iterative” solution, but they interpret the iterations as real
historical periods, rather than purely logical iterations within a
given period.  In their later articles, their numerical examples
include only two periods, but these two periods must be followed by
subsequent iterations.  David Laibman has argued that the futher
iterations don’t seem to converge.

Riccardo, why do you think they should converge?

David, can you help us out on this question?

> If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should work directly on
> the German, and do a true hermeneutical work. Those who have done
> that certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put to test, and
> not a finished business for certain. So Kliman has to resort to a
> peculiar, disputable hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical
> Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that criterion is put
> outside discussion.

“Makes better sense of the theory as a whole” makes sense to me as a
reasonable criterion by which to evaluate competing interpretations.
But of course this criterion is still very subjective, and in the end
(usually) not conclusive objectively.

But I still think that it is a useful criterion to consider, in order
to get a better idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of
different interpretations, even if it (usually) does not result in
universally accepted conclusions.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 02 2007 - 00:00:11 EDT