From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 12:20:52 EST
Ajit, I am sorry that I still do not understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that since general equilibrium theory structured as it is around simultaneous equations has no place for causal relations, Sraffa's theory also no such place since it is only an immanent critique of GET? > > >The question is do you call the time subscripted c and >v capital or not. And if not, what do you call them? > > >What do you mean by "meaning of cause in Sraffa's >theory"? Sraffa is not propositing his own meaning of >cause. So what meaning, if any, is implicit in his theory? >He has developed a set of mathematical >propositions given a set of methods of production and >a rule for distribution of surplus that shows that the >neoclassical economics has no foundations. so one accepts neoclassical economics' attempt to render economic relations tractable through timeless and acausal simultaneous equations? but why accept its formalism? What's wrong with Freeman's critique of that? > But you >should keep in mind that cause has several meanings. OK, I shall try. >Most important ones are mechanical causality, which is >classically explained by the example of a lever; and >the second is the essential causality, which basically >means that the explanation of a phenomenon is sought >in its essence. >_________________________ and expressive, probabilistic, formal, final, and juridical causality. There's cause as derived from Mill's method of comparison, and there's cause in terms of mechanical reconstruction. I can speak a language and a monkey cannot because of my genes. Genes are the cause of variance, but genes alone do not allow me to speak, so genes are an incomplete cause of my ability to speak, etc. I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the implicit meaning of cause or determination (what Shaikh was long ago concerned with) in neo Ricardian theory. > > > > >Sraffa's contribution is not to mathematical or >philosophical problems. It is a contribution to a >critique of economic theory. Does it reminfd you of a >title of an old book? >___________________________ So it accepts the meanings of cause and determination implicit in the theory which it is critiquing? Is that your point? But this only brings us back to the question of what are the meanings of cause and determination in the theory which it is critiquing? And if general equilibrium theory is best understood as an exercise in mathematical logic, then wouldn't neo Ricardian theory have to be the same kind of exercise as well? Yours, Rakesh > > >Hopefully now you have got it! Cheers, ajit sinha > I know that I am slow! Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 00:00:00 EST