Andrew
------
IN THE WHOLE DISCUSSION OVER THESE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, THESE TWO
QUESTIONS KEEP COMING BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN IN DIFFERENT FORMS. BUT
NO SIMULTANEIST EVER BOTHERS TO ANSWER THEM. (This is, inter alia,
my response to Paul's post about levels of abstraction a couple of
months ago. I want to see critics of the TSS interpretation come
up with some actual models of the tendency of the profit rate, the
determination of aggregate price and profitability of the real world,
not just static solutions and stories about dynamics which never get
developed so that their presumed relation to the static solutions
can be TESTED. Isn't this part of being "scientific"?)
Paul
----
I think this is a bit unfair. In response to your point I immediately
drew up a simultaeous model which took into account dynamics. This
was distributed at the EEA, and is available as:
'Notes on dynamic value' from my web page
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/Contrib/wpc/reports/
My calculations in the example you discuss were derived using the
methods given in that paper.
Andrew
------
My only disagreement with Paul's conclusions from his example is this:
it really doesn't say anything about whether it is the historical or
the "real" rate that tends to get equalized. What it does indicate is
that the historical rate changes over time, so that if this is the
profit rate that tends to get equalized, it is not some fixed point
to which profit rates move.
Paul
----
My contention is that neither rate of profit gets equalised. You have
yet to demonstrate that the hsitorical rate of profit which you equalise
in your approach, can actually equalise.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html