From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 16:36:50 EDT
My work obligations forces me to round of this round of exchange of opinions with a few brief comments. But I will return with articles along these lines. Jurrian on Shaik: I can follow Shaik here. Prices of production might be an "attractor" - that is a point that the system tends to but never reaches, for example a limit (business) cycle. The problem with Shaiks example is that capitals do not move, there is not decline/growth of some branches with high/low org.comp - which means that the Shaik iterative exercise converges - as Laibman has shown - to the well known static price vector. But the fact that a state is never reached is not an argument that it is not important for modelling. Some in the evolutionary school (like Stan Metcalfe) tries to get rid of the concept of equilibrium, replacing it with the notion of "order out of disorder", but dis-equilibrium can only be defined as "not in equilibrium". Jurriaan writes: "we'd be modelling a pattern of economic activity (some kind of dynamic equilibrium) never realized in real life. What is the point of that? How does that differ from Arrow-Debreu stories?" That we have equilibrium forces in our model is no problem as long as we also have the dis-equilibrium ones - they are the same forces! To make such models would mean to be very conscious what aspect of capitalist reality we want to model, but take fore example unequal exchange. This whole debate is deeply flawed by the use of unrealistic static concepts/results, equal profit rates etc. But the fact that profit rates are not equal is not an argument for not having some equations giving profit rate equal, given that no tech. change happens - but since tech change is a the core of competition - the "disrupting" mechanisms have to be modelled too. We must model the general aspiration towards wage equalization - it is a real force in society. No "given" wage, certainly not a wage as "marginal productivity" - there is a "historical and moral element" which destroys such ideological myths. >In reply to Anders: > >Robin Blackburn [snip] ......But this requires a very deep understanding >of the morality of power and the power of morality, since any system that >distributes resources according to need, is also vulnerable to terrible >abuse, and pits the needs of some against the needs of others, with both >claiming an equal right to have them satisfied. [snip] ... In >that sense, liberals and socialists are probably not far apart, at least in >their aspiration. I fully agree with this. My own research has been on the skilled/simple/complex/intensified/abstract labour issue. Marx treats this core problem in scattered paragraphs and long footnotes, but never treats it properly. My conclusion is close (a bit more radical) than Mao Itoh (The basic theory... p. 149 - 168) - also inspired by Rosdolsky's thoughts about the problem. I am in the process of converting my thesis (in Norwegian) into English as a series of papers. First will be presented at the Ass.Het.Econ conf. i Bristol. Regards Anders
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT