Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - consensus?

From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 12:54:28 EDT

Dear Gary,

Maybe I was too quick on the trigger here, but that was certainly my
impression after reading the "Vulgar economy paper". Can you give me
a couple of references to your dynamic, non-equilibrium work.

I have a deadline Tuesday, so I can only get seriously back on this
after that - and when I have had time to study your dynamic,
non-equilibrium work.


At 19:37 20.10.2007, you wrote:
>May I just correct an inaccurate statement by Anders? He writes that:
>"Mongiovi and Veneziani only accept static equilibrium (input prices
>= output prices, Bortkiewicz, Sraffa, Steedman kind of models). They
>seem very unwilling to look outside this very limited paradigm."
>I don't believe I have ever suggested, and I know I have never
>believed, that the "static equilibrium paradigm" is the only
>legitimate framework for analyzing the world, or for interpreting
>Marx. On the contrary, I am on record as saying that Marx, like his
>predecessors Smith & Ricardo, was primarily concerned with issues
>that cannot be analyzed within that framework and that these issues
>are important. I have argued, however, that in his analysis of
>value, price determination & the main determinants of the profit
>rate, Marx adopted much the same method & approach of Smith &
>Ricardo, in which the objects of his investigation were conceived as
>long-period centers of gravitation.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT