Gerald_A_Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com> said: > In [6138] Rakesh quoted Homa Katzouzian's Ideology and Method in > Economics (New York University Press, 1980): > > > "Or in other words the Marxian theory of value, etc, suffered from the > fact > > that it was more realistic but less mathematical. > > Yet, non-equilibrium dynamic analysis is *more* mathematically sophisticated > (i.e. complex) than simultaneism, isn't it? > > In solidarity, Jerry Jerry, The common criticism of Marx from bourgeois economics is that his lack of mathematical sophistication disallowed him from working on the inputs and outputs simultaneously in the analysis of the transformation problem and technical change. The attempt to formalize Marx's arguments via the use of simultaneous equations putatively leads to the breakdown of his system. Because simultaneous equations seemed at the time seemed to be the most mathematically sophisticated approach available, the criticism thereby gained 'authority', though the use of simultaneous equations implied entirely unreasonable assumptions about the economy, e.g, technical change can be analyzed in terms of comparative statics. Form thus took precedence over content. (As I have argued, one can for the sake of argument successfully put Marx's transformation into simultaneous equations as long as one chooses the one invariance condition that is consistent with the critique of the adding up theory of value, though I do not think Marx believed that there existed the long term 'equilibrium' price of production implied by the use of simultaneism: prices of production for Marx were what was prices would have been in any period if counterfactually the profit rate had equalized and demand equalled supply; prices of production are not long term centers of gravity--indeed I do not even think Ricardo believed natural prices had this property.) It may be true that present attempts to make the formalization more realistic through difference equations or chaos theory are now more mathematically sophisticated than the older mathematicizations of Marx, but the reason for the superiority of such formalizations should not simply be that they are more mathematically sophisticated. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EST