From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Mon Sep 03 2007 - 23:01:23 EDT
> Equilibrium theorizing is not the same as simultaneous determination > theorizing. One can have equilibrium (in the sense of equal rates of > profit and long-run center-of-gravity prices) without simultaneous > determination. Are you sure this is correct Fred? All equilibria of systems of ordinary differential equations are systems of simultaneous equations. An equilibrium is, almost by definition, a situation where the output state is identical to the input state; hence, the state of the system is constant over time. So if you want to develop dynamic models then you unavoidably have simultaneous determination in special cases. Although equilibrium theorizing is inherently limited it nonetheless is essentially related to non-equilibrium theorizing. This is a problem for the TSSI injunction against simultaneous determination. Also, regardless of the interpretative issue of whether Marx's theory is sequential or simultaneous there now exists a post-Bortkiewicz special case of self-replacing equilibrium in the literature. Why does Marx's theory of value appear to breakdown in this special case? As far as I can tell the TSSI answer is that it is "unrealistic" to assume inputs prices equal output prices; and in more hyperbolic moments they claim that simultaneous determination and equilibrium theorizing belongs to bourgeois ideology. This is a totally unpersuasive answer to the neo-Ricardian critique. The critique must be met on its own ground, not by refusing to accept the terms of the debate or its scientific legitimacy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT