From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Oct 28 2007 - 14:42:41 EDT
--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: Also the more I study his critique of neoclassical capital theory the less I am convinced > that it is successful; e.g. I am persuaded by > Bidard's analysis of the > logical coherence of the marginal productivity of > capital, and have > followed the recent debates between Samuelson and > Garegnani with > interest. It seems to me that Samuelson still > engages in this debate > since he is clearly enjoying it.) ____________________________ Ian, you are not distinguishing between classical Walrasian GE and the inter-temporal GE. The Walrasian GE has uniformity of the rate of interest as the condition of equilibrium and it does require some kind of notion of aggregate capital independent of the rate of interest. The inter-temporal GE does not require uniformity of rate of interest as a condition for equilibrium and deals with capital as vector of physical goods. Thus it does not need capital aggregation. The Sraffian critique applies to the classical Walrasian GE but not to the inter-temporal version. When Samuelson talks about GE, he means inter-temporal version of GE. Garegnani thinks that he could extent the Sraffian critique to the inter-temporal version as well, as their version of savings and investment is not safe from the reswitching type of problem. On another note, as we have shown in our 'equilibrium paper' if the condition of the rate of profits to be uniform must be maintained, then even in the inter-temporal framework, input prices must be equal to output prices. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT