I rather liked Meghnad Desai's analysis of simple reproduction in the first part of his Marxian Economics Book (as I now remember it). I read his interpretation as follows: even assuming away the disturbances from the continuous revolution in values in terms of its effect on stocks of fixed capital, there are so still so many points of possible disturbance on the both the value and the technical side in simple and expanded reproduction that it is inconceivable that capitalist development could ever take the form of equilibrium growth. This of course is also the thrust of Grossman's interpretation of the schema in his dynamics book. There was some debate between Andrew K and Paul Z about whether the schema were meant to prove the possibility of expanded reproduction without a permanent consumption deficit. It seems to me that Marx himself was trying to demonstrate in his schema is that capitalist development at any point cannot reasonably be expected to take place in equilibrium. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT