Re: [OPE] Specially for Patrick Bond: David Harvey on equilibrium

Jurrian: **How can there be disequilibrium without equilibrium? Well as a matter of fact very easily - we could just admit there is disequilibrium (lack of market balance between demand and supply) IN REALITY compared to the IDEAL-THEORETICAL state of equilibrium which DOESN'T EXIST and is in fact never reached, and for which there is no empirical proof or evidence.**   I’m really sorry Jurriaan, but this statement shows that you have not been able either to escape the static concept of equilibrium that thrives in the minds of Dave, Ian, Dogan, etc.   We can, and we do indeed, have a concept of disequilibrium that doesn’t presuppose equilibrium.  Disequilibrium in the static and linear sense means lack of equilibrium; disequilibrium in the dynamic and non-linear sense means public information that prices carry, which signals investment opportunities that someone have to use, either a capitalist or a socialist entrepreneur. Indeed, an equilibrated economy in the linear sense is nonsense!   Of course! Ideological prejudices have expelled entrepreneurs from the theoretical fictions of Marxists. Take a look at OPE’s archives. Search the key word: disequilibrium prices.  A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@telfort.nl> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: jueves, 17 de septiembre, 2009 8:20:37 Asunto: [OPE] Specially for Patrick Bond: David Harvey on equilibrium I take it from the fact that you people don't respond to my substantive argument, and start talking about hot air pressures, disequilibrium, statistical relationships etc. that you agree with me - silence means consent. Jerry's vulgar Marxism boils down to saying that "how can you meaningfully talk about variables, without constants" ? Well, quite, but that is neither here nor there, and does not speak to my argument. Marx described the necessary minimal proportions for the expanded reproduction of capital without referring to equilibrium at all. He knew very well that there are constantly adjustments in response to the uneven development of business sectors, and that there are disproportions all the time, which, at a certain point, become critical for the system as a whole, without there being any market balance at any time. The core argument of bourgeois economics is that market trade, if unimpeded by exogenous influences, tend spontaneously by means of price movements to create a balance of supply and demand, and this is generalised to the economy as a whole, such that if things are left to the market, a general equilibrium will spontaneously result. This argument is accepted by the bourgeois Marxists, who then just argue that the economy moves from equilibrium to disequilibrium, and back again. But as I point out, this confuses supply-demand balance with price stability and social order, and they are not at all the same thing. If you think they are the same thing, you don't deserve to call yourself an economist. How can there be disequilibrium without equilibrium? Well as a matter of fact very easily - we could just admit there is disequilibrium (lack of market balance between demand and supply) IN REALITY compared to the IDEAL-THEORETICAL state of equilibrium which DOESN'T EXIST and is in fact never reached, and for which there is no empirical proof or evidence.  And that is precisely what bourgeois economics, in its Marxist and non-Marxist guises, often argues. In his Bundesbank speech on January 13, 2004, Alan Greenspan, stated: "Globalization has altered the economic frameworks of both developed and developing nations in ways that are difficult to fully comprehend. Nonetheless, the largely unregulated global markets do clear, and, with rare exceptions, appear to move effortlessly from one state of equilibrium to another. It is as though an international version of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is at work." That is a perfect description of the bourgeois ideology, and the only modification by the bourgeois Marxists is, that equilibrium is interrupted by crises, through which equilibrium is restored. The bourgeois Marxists just save their market equilibrium ideology by redefining the meaning of equilibrium to suit their purpose, that is all, they wax profoundly about systemic equilibrium or stochastic equilibrium etc. but that is just playing with words and misses the substantive argument by a mile. They have bought into the bourgeois ideology which conflates market-balance with social order and price stability in a completely unscientific way. You can talk statistical poetry all you like but I am talking about the foundational concepts on which the poetry is based. Jurriaan _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Sep 17 15:21:11 2009