From: A.B.Trigg (A.B.Trigg@OPEN.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 07:21:47 EST
Paul. I don't argue that supply creates its own demand at the macro level. The problem at the macro level is that investment increases capacity but does not automatically create sufficient demand to establish balanced growth (this at least is the Domar interpretation of Marx's reproduction schemes). However, whilst Say's Law would assume this problem away, if it were to hold, I think it may also assume away the problem of disproportionality: since supply and demand are perfectly matched if the departments of production are in balance. Does this make any sense? Andrew. -----Original Message----- From: paul cockshott [mailto:clyder@GN.APC.ORG] Sent: Tue 02/03/2004 10:53 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories? I take it you are not supporting the idea that supply creates its own demand at the macro level? -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of ajit sinha Sent: 02 March 2004 07:35 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories? Ajit. Can you explain a little more about disproportionality? It could be argued that proportionality between the departments of production requires that they are in balance: that supply and demand are equal. If supply creates its own demand (Say's Law), then this means there cannot be disproportionality. I agree that general overproduction is distinct from this, however. Andrew. _________________ Supply does not have to create a demand of equal amount of its own kind. Say's law is more of a macro level proposition. It only opposes a theoretical possibility of a general glut. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EST