Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - does anyone think it is relevant?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Nov 06 2007 - 17:03:30 EST

Anders writes: 
I think that f.ex. Farjoun and Machover, the "New solution", the TSSI
probably are pointing to the fact that the problem have to be
reformulated before it can be solved. Inside the Bortiewicz framework
there is no solution - only inconsitencies.

Like the TSSI I am convinced that Marx was not simultaneist, he was a
profoundly dynamic, dialectic thinker, but his use of "long-run
equilib. models has shaped the subsequent debate. That's why I am
much less condemning of those who have not yet seen the TSSI-light.
Maybe mainstream economics has to become truly dynamic before Marxist
economics returns full scale dynamic - and the TP finds a solution on
this basis.
I much prefer Farjoun and Machover's work to Kliman and Freemans, since in the latter case they retain the equilibrium assumption of a general rate of profit, which should fall in a dynamic model.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST