From: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
Date: Tue Mar 20 2007 - 07:47:04 EDT
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:55:14 +0100 To: OPE-L <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> From: Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values Hi Jerry. First of all, apologies to all. I had to disappear from the discussion for work, but also the unexpected invitation to give my comments for a week at the daily special on the economy of the most important public channel, in 60 seconds (sic). It is exciting desperately seeking to say something in no time at all, and be sure that all the comrades will complain. So I am not even opening the mails. I opened yours by chance, however. Very quickly, here I agree with you only 50%. Yes, Marx's argument is not framed in micro/macro terms. Hence from the point of INTERPRETATION strictly speaking, it does not work. The same is true, btw, with the language of the representative firm. But NO, from the point of view of RECONSTUCTION the micro/macro (NOT the representative agent) language is enlightening, and it even opens new vistas on interpretation. In Volume I, for example, it is clear that going on Marx moves from the individual capital as representative of the total, to a reasoning where the argument in terms of total capital in a class and monetary economy is OPPOSED to the conclusions which seemed to be reached at first. So, the macro logic is different, and opposed, and more fundamental than the 'micro' (representative firm) one. A true (monetary, class) macrofoundation of microeconomics. The details are in my chapter in the Bellofiore/Taylor book. And indeed my criticism to Fred is not only that his is a RECONSTRUCTION (quite legitimate, of course). It is mainly that it is NOT TRULY mac ro and monetary. The details in that chapter. ciao, and again apologies to all. riccardo >At 13:25 -0500 19-03-2007, Jerry Levy wrote: >> > That is, a stash of "money to be advanced" can be said to exist >>> _prior_ to production only (a) at the micro level of individual >>> firms (perhaps!) or (b) in a fictional economy on a synchronized >>> annual agricultural cycle. >> >> >>Hi Allin and others: >> >> >>I think this issue arises in Fred's perspective because he takes the >>analysis of Volume 1 and capital-in-general to concern the >>macroeconomy. Suppose instead that the issue of where the >>initial M comes from and what its quantity is in the formula >>M - C - M' comes up in the context of what modern economists >>call a "representative firm". In more Hegelian language, it might be >>thought of as a capitalist firm in the context of simple, undifferentiated >>unity. This isn't exactly a real firm because it is presented at a stage >>when competition has not yet been posited. If this were the case, then >>the macro issue in terms of stipulating the initial quantity of M doesn't >>come up: one could plug in _any_ number so long as a) the number is >>assumed to be sufficient to purchase C (MP, LP) and b) so long as >>M' is larger than M. The issue, after all, for Marx wasn't what the >>quantity of M in the beginning of the formula is; the issue was what is >>the source of delta M at the end of the formula. >> >>The micro/macro distinction that we're all familiar with doesn't work >>very well in terms of interpreting Marx's theory, imo. >> >>In solidarity, Jerry > > >Riccardo Bellofiore >Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche >"Hyman P. Minsky" >Università di Bergamo >Via dei Caniana 2 >I-24127 Bergamo, Italy >e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it >direct +39-035-2052545 >secretary +39-035 2052501 >fax: +39 035 2052549 >homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT