From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2007 - 12:54:28 EDT
Dear Gary, Maybe I was too quick on the trigger here, but that was certainly my impression after reading the "Vulgar economy paper". Can you give me a couple of references to your dynamic, non-equilibrium work. I have a deadline Tuesday, so I can only get seriously back on this after that - and when I have had time to study your dynamic, non-equilibrium work. Regards Anders At 19:37 20.10.2007, you wrote: >May I just correct an inaccurate statement by Anders? He writes that: > >"Mongiovi and Veneziani only accept static equilibrium (input prices >= output prices, Bortkiewicz, Sraffa, Steedman kind of models). They >seem very unwilling to look outside this very limited paradigm." > >I don't believe I have ever suggested, and I know I have never >believed, that the "static equilibrium paradigm" is the only >legitimate framework for analyzing the world, or for interpreting >Marx. On the contrary, I am on record as saying that Marx, like his >predecessors Smith & Ricardo, was primarily concerned with issues >that cannot be analyzed within that framework and that these issues >are important. I have argued, however, that in his analysis of >value, price determination & the main determinants of the profit >rate, Marx adopted much the same method & approach of Smith & >Ricardo, in which the objects of his investigation were conceived as >long-period centers of gravitation. > >Gary > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT