From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Tue Feb 27 2007 - 13:01:50 EST
> Hi. Solow criticized the assumption of equal rates of SV, on the ground > that there is no mechanism that can bring about that equalization. He > contrasted that case with the equalization of profit rates, which, in the > absence of impediments to the movement of capital, is brought about by > intersectoral capital flows. > Solow's criticism is trivial, but I suppose his every utterance must be taken seriously. Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than convenience of calculation in his transformation. He also assumes in his calculations that the value transferred from the used up means of production is the same as the value of the money costs of the used up means of production. Both assumptions are false, and Marx knows it. But it also matters not to the logic of his demonstration of why and how it is concealed that price remains a function of value. Rakesh > Regards, > > Gary > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha > Sent: Tue 2/27/2007 12:24 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Cc: > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Sraffa's Contribution to Marxian Political Economy > > > > Thanks Jerry! It sounds more like a critique of Marx > rather than Sraffa. Are you sure he criticised the > assumption of equal rate of surplus value and not > equal rate of profits? cheers, ajit sinha > > --- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > > > > I would be interested in knowing what Solow had > > to say. > > > > Hi Ajit: > > > > I didn't take notes and am not sure I remembered all > > of the points he made > > or can recount them accurately. (He spoke for quite > > a while, at least > > as long as those who were making presentations.) > > Perhaps Gary and/or > > Riccardo can fill-in or correct the following > > points: > > > > i) he was surprised (and humored) by the attention > > which Sraffa's archives > > has drawn. > > > > ii) he recounted discussions he had with PS and his > > impressions of him > > which were generally favorable. Clearly, he > > respected PS as a peer > > and scholar. > > > > iii) he criticized the assumption of a equal rate > > of surplus (value) as > > not having a real base. In other words, it was > > assumed for reasons > > of mathematical convenience. He also discussed the > > issue of > > the amounts of unknowns in Sraffa's theory and the > > choices that > > were made about limiting the quantity of unknowns. > > > > iv) he criticized the point on the wage-rate of > > profit frontier > > where the rate of profit equals zero. At that > > point, he claimed > > 'exploitation' had no meaning. He did add, though, > > that he > > was not opposed to a claim that there is > > exploitation in the > > real world. (*) > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > (*) iii and iv could be seen as similar objections > > in the > > sense that both imply that Sraffa's theory > > over-simplified the > > subject matter for reasons of mathematical > > expedience. A fair > > criticism perhaps, but from someone who developed a > > one-sector > > growth model? > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Have a burning question? > Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST