From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Mon Sep 03 2007 - 11:51:17 EDT
Dear Fred, very quickly, because work has begun again at full speed. 1. I have in mind Shaik's Ph.D. thesis (it is 1974, I guess, if not 1973) and, yes, the iterative solution. I go by heart, so I am not sure. It is a line which was also pursued by Morishima, and took up again ideas from Shibata and Brody. 2. about TSSI my position here is the same as David (Laibman). I quote: "the sequential calculation has to go in one of two directions. Either you embrace a theoretical conception of time by working out the value-formation process under assumed constant social and technical conditions of production; or you allow technology, the rate of exploitaton, etc. to change as the iterations proceed. The former corresponds to the Shaikh-Morishima-Nuti iterative solution, and leads to the stationary result also obtained by simultaneous calculation (Meek, Sraffa, etc. -- and Laibman!). ... It is based very clearly, I believe, in Marx's premise that value theory is about laying bare the underlying structure in a given set of market-based social relations. The alternative -- the TSSI variety of "temporal" analysis, in which everything constantly changes and therefore no convergence takes place -- is, in my view, the abandonment of any chance at a theoretical perspective; it is pure empiricism, the systematic confounding of fortuitous experienced phenomena with their deep-structural determinants. It is not really a "single system"; it is rather an eclectic mishmash in which values, prices of production and market prices are all merged into one another and cannot be distinguished, and in which theory, in Marx's sense, plays no role." As I said, it is methodologically very similar to Mises' rejection of equilibrium theorizing. 3. "Makes better sense of the theory as a whole": from which point of view? The TSSI lately rescued the Principle of Textual Exegesis by Stigler. It is very contexted, and it cannot be taken for granted, or as THE criterion in any absolute sense. If it is just assumed and put outside the theoretical questioning, this is strictly speaking dogmatism (cfr. Hegel, Introduction to the Phenomenology of the Spirit). Now, the key move of TSSI is, thanks to the PTE taken for granted, to say that their interpretation is no more an interpretation, it is Marx's himself speaking. And here's again dogmatism. I pointed this in London twice, in a discussion on Kliman (what I think is now the Intro and the Conclusion of the book) at the HM conference 2005, and at a AHE plenary on pluralism in 2006. Of course I didn't convinced the TSSI people there, and I think I can live with that. I am glad that you agree that all this is non-conclusive. For me it is even less conclusive, since for me the real problem in Marx is NOT the transformation, but the argument according to which value exhibits in money only labour. It is here that Marx's argument is problematic. If that argument is correct (or, if not, if it is reconstructed), then the change of form in prices cannot but redistribute the same quantity of labour. Of course, the TSSI simply cannot understand that for somebody there are problems in Marx, serious problems, which have nothing to do with the transformation (see the repeated criticism by Kliman). When I presented my Ghost and vampire paper in London, Freeman based his comments as a discussant on ONE phrase on the transformation were it was said that generally it is seen as problematic. That's it. 4. However, I cannot understand how one can makes better sense of a theory if it bases himself on inaccurate translations, and this is the case of the English translations: so, the debate should be done on the original texts if one wants to put in question the other readings against the original Marx. 5.The Italian works I quoted were intervention in the debate on Marx. Cini is 1974 in a non-mathematical version, a mathematical version wa published early 1980s but the paper is surely earlier. Laise-Pala-Valentino is 1977 (I wrote, I guess, not Valentino but Tucci in my prior mail, because later Tucci worked with Laise in books over Wicksell and Walras). They were discussing the transformation problem within the LTV. Probably for you (and me) the Laise-Pala-Valentino is the most interesting (and it stresses the essentiality of a material interpretation of the wage: and it does so as a criticism against the Sraffians' reading). Again, I go by heart. They criticised the positions of those who used the simultaneous solution against Marx, for the presumed inessentiality of labour quantities in the transformation, a point raised by Napoleoni in 1966, much earlier than Steedman. 6. You write: "Previously existing quantity of money capital is taken as given in the determination of the value and prices of production of the output at the end of the circuit" This looks new to me, it seems that you now take that "existing" in a temporal meaning. Now, either we fall back in the discussion clarified by Laibman, or that money magnitudes have to do with elements of constant and variable capital sold at their prices of production, so why it is that relevant? That money magnitudes are simultaneously given with prices anyhow. 7. I guess Ronchon is Rochon. May you give me the reference? 8. Graziani does not bother very much with the transformation problem, and rightly so. The theory of the monetary circuit is a true macro-class-monetary approach, that interprets valorization at the level of analysis of Book I, with capital as a whole versus the working class. In that perspective, the determination of prices is subsequent, and not relevant to valorization. You can check reading the very, very short paper by Graziani in the IJPE 1997 I edited. I have not read the next messages (I am now going to read the last OPE-L messages of the last few days), so I apologize if some of this is redundant or out of focus. riccardo At 21:53 -0400 30-08-2007, Fred Moseley wrote: >Quoting Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>: > >>In a sense, Fred, this was not already there in Shaikh 1974 or the >>like, without the excessive stress on the non-equilibrium etc.? > >Riccardo, which Shaikh article do you have in mind? The “iterative” >solution to the transformation, or something else? > >Shaikh’s “iterative” solution is not really sequential determination, >because the fundamental givens are still the physical quantities, and >he comes to the same prices of production and rate of profit as >simultaneous determination. > > >>The TSSI claims that there is no convergence to the Sraffian solution >>but I doubt that, it seems to me that (as the the Austrian Mises >>would do: he too was critical of equilibrium theorizing!) they simply >>say that the conditions may change between one period and another. > >Kliman and McGlone have changed somewhat with respect to this issue. >In their original article, their numerical example does converge to the >simultaneous determination solution (in the 13th period). In this >case, their interpretation is essentially the same as Shaikh’s >“iterative” solution, but they interpret the iterations as real >historical periods, rather than purely logical iterations within a >given period. In their later articles, their numerical examples >include only two periods, but these two periods must be followed by >subsequent iterations. David Laibman has argued that the futher >iterations don’t seem to converge. > >Riccardo, why do you think they should converge? > >David, can you help us out on this question? > >>If one wants to interpret Marx "correctly" should work directly on >>the German, and do a true hermeneutical work. Those who have done >>that certainly do not come out with ONE Marx to be put to test, and >>not a finished business for certain. So Kliman has to resort to a >>peculiar, disputable hermeneutical criterion, by the Neoclassical >>Stigler. This becomes dogmatic as soon as that criterion is put >>outside discussion. > > >“Makes better sense of the theory as a whole” makes sense to me as a >reasonable criterion by which to evaluate competing interpretations. >But of course this criterion is still very subjective, and in the end >(usually) not conclusive objectively. > >But I still think that it is a useful criterion to consider, in order >to get a better idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of >different interpretations, even if it (usually) does not result in >universally accepted conclusions. > >Comradely, >Fred >Riccardo, please tell us more about these Italians and their theories >of sequential determination. Were they interpreting Marx’s theory or >were they unrelated to Marx’s theory directly? What kind of questions >were they analyzing? Did they criticize simultaneous determination? > >Another type of theory, that you know a lot more about than I do, and >that also seems to assume sequential determination, at least in some >versions, is the “theory of the monetary circuit”. For example, >Ronchon has a few very brief and inadequate discussions of sequential >determination, but no critiques of simultaneous determination. Does >Graziani discuss this issue? > >Marx’s theory and the theory of the monetary circuit are similar in >that the analytical framework for both theories is the circulation of >money capital: > > M – C … P … C’ – M’ > >This circuit of money capital suggests sequential determination, >because capital exists first in the form of money capital in the sphere >of circulation, and this previously existing quantity of money capital >is taken as given in the determination of the value and prices of >production of the output at the end of the circuit. > >The sequential theory of price assumed by Ronchon is the Post-Keynesian >“mark-up” theory of prices, according to which: P = kW, where k and W >are taken as given in the determination of P. > >Comradely >Fred -- 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 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/pers/?riccardo.bellofiore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT