From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Feb 28 2004 - 01:28:07 EST
--- "A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@OPEN.AC.UK> wrote: > Jerry. > This is something that I am currrently grappling > with, so it is very useful for you to raise it. My > reading of the Grossmanite defence against the Say's > Law charge is that Grossman assumes that prices are > equivalent to values, as in Capital vs I and II, and > therefore supply is assumed equal to demand. Now the > same charge has been levelled against the Marxian > reproduction schema that Marx assumes that supply > and demand are in balance, and therefore Marx > assumes Say's Law to hold. The reply might be that > Marx considers the reproduction schema as a special > extreme in which balanced growth takes place; he > explores the unlikely conditions under which supply > and demand are in balance. By demonstrating how > diffficult it is to achieve this balance Marx in > fact falsifies Say's Law, showing that supply does > not automatically create demand. Does this seem a > sensible interpretation? _________________________ I don't think Say's law denies disproportionality problem. What it denies is the possibility of a general glut or overproduction. Cheers, ajit sinha > > Grossmann also assumes that supply and demand are in > balance but then develops the reproduction > schemes with a rising organic composition of capital > to show that they break down. Now the point that > could be made here is that for Grossman the > breakdown is not due to the falsification of Say's > Law. Supply and demand are assumed to be in balance > throughout Grossman's simulation. But he introduces > an addditional reason - as if Marx's falsification > of Say's Law wasn't powerful enough - as to why > expanded reproduction is unlikely over an extended > period: namely, the law of the falling rate of > profit. Issues of where the money and demand comes > from for extended reproduction to take place are > relegated to the heretic backwaters of > underconsumptionism - all that matters is the SUPPLY > of surplus value which dries up under the falling > rate of profit. > > Any comments gratefully received, or relevant > references I should check out. > > Andrew. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald A. Levy [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM] > > Sent: Tue 24/02/2004 12:57 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Cc: > Subject: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories? > > > John Rosenthal (1999) "Addressing the Dogma of > Growth" in > Paul Zarembka ed. _Research in Political Economy_ > 19, asserts > that Grossman and "Grossmanian" theories (including > that of > list member Anwar Shaikh) assume "Say's Law". > Rosenthal > makes the claim that Grossman's theory _implicitly_ > assumes > "Say's Law" even though he acknowledges that > Grossman > _explicitly_ rejected Say's Law. > > -- Do others agree that Grossman's theory > implicitly assumed > Say's Law? > > -- Do "Grossmanian theories" assume Say's Law? > > -- Are there any Marxian theorists from a > non-"Grossmanian" > tradition which assume Say's Law? > > In solidarity, Jerry > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 29 2004 - 00:00:02 EST