Re: (OPE-L) Re: Hume and constraint based theories

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 18:59:42 EST

Ian wrote

>But a further limitation of this theory, or at least a
>limitation of how it has been used, is that it does not
>admit of contradictory constraints, for example Marx's
>aggregate equalities. I don't want to argue whether
>Marx's equalities do or do not hold. Instead I want to
>point out that some interpreters of Sraffa's theory
>deny the existence of contradictory constraints in reality,
>for no other reason, it seems to me at least, than
>sets of overdetermined equations cannot be solved (or
>they think they cannot be solved).

Hasn't Michele Naples' point been that the two equalities
over determining an equilibrium set of equations does
not logically invalidate Marx but only indicates that capitalist
exploitation has to be incompatible with equilibrium?

>  The fallacy consists
>in reducing transfactually active mechanisms in open
>systems to the effects they generate in closed systems.

Let me think about that! About the work the distinction between
open and closed systems is doing in this ingenious formulation.

>For example, reducing the mechanism of the law of value to
>the definition of value as embodied labour, or reducing
>the mechanism of the equalisation of profits to the
>assumption of equal profit rates. This is a real blunder,
>particularly as it seems to me that the interesting dynamic
>questions can only arise in theories that admit of
>contradictory tendencies in the economy that interact
>over time.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 00:00:01 EST