Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Sep 22 2007 - 12:43:06 EDT

Hi Jerry, thanks for your comment.

As I said to Ian H., I am not talking now about dynamic analysis.  I am
talking about a theory of long-run equilibrium prices, using the
circuit of money capital as the analytical framework, and allowing for
unequal turnover periods across industries.  Allowing for unequal
turnover periods does not necessarily mean dynamic analysis.


Quoting glevy@PRATT.EDU:

> Re Fred's reply to Paul C:
> As Fred knows - and as I pointed out recently (even though it was obvious)
> - Marx's theory also was not was not formalized in difference or
> differential equations.  What Fred is asserting, imo, does not appreciate
> either the meaning of Sraffa's theory or that of Marx.
> At the risk of again stating the obvious, Sraffa never denied that
> capitalism was a dynamic system.  Just as obviously, Marx understood that
> it _was_ a dynamic system _but_ his formalizations in _Capital_ did not
> adequately express that insight.
> Marx, like the classical political economists, developed his formal
> analysis using the convention of "periods of production".  There's much to
> be said for period analysis, but it is _not_ dynamic analysis.  It's
> rather a kind of comparative statics.
> So, the problem isn't just - or even primarily - one for Sraffa.  Sraffa's
> concern in _PCBMC_ was to critique marginalism.  For that limited purpose,
> a dynamic presentstion was not necessary.  Marx's concern was to lay bare
> the economic law(s) of motion of capitalism and _that_ requires that one
> (eventually) incorporate dynamic analysis into the theory.  Although there
> are "dynamic insights" in his theory, Marx never really did this.  So, the
> problem that Fred is raising is more a problem for Marxians who wish to
> to move beyond the period analysis in _Capital_.  This is especially a
> problem for those who see Marx's theory as "complete" rather than a
> partially completed layered analysis presented in terms of levels of
> abstraction.  (This does not include Fred.)
> Is it legitimate to present a theory initially using the convention of
> period analysis and then move on to dynamic analysis?  I don't see why
> not, but if I am mistaken someone should correct me.  However, if one were
> to do that with Marx's theory then it would no longer be Marx's theory but
> would be another (perhaps superior) theory.
> In solidarity, Jerry

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT