I think I'll want to say more, a bit later, about Alan's ope-l 3030 and ope-l
3031, but for now a brief comment:
Very near the end of ope-l 3031 (Okishio 5 0f 4), Alan writes:
"Take a model you
agree with and some assumptions you agree with. I allow you
free choice of model, free choice of assumptions, free
choice of argument. On the house. The only constraint I
impose is this: the money paid must equal the money
received, and the usual laws of physics apply. *These* are
the constraints that Okishio violates. Then I'll prove to
you that your model produces different results if you
dynamise it coherently with reality, from if you dynamise it
in accordance with (E); and moreover, if productivity rises
monotonically over time, your profit rate will not only be
systematically lower than Okishio's, it will fall until and
unless the capitalists disaccumulate in money terms -
*exactly* as Marx says."
There's another "constraint" that I think needs to be "imposed" for the profit
rate to differ *systematically* from Okishio's if productivity rises
monotonically: the determination of value by labor-time. I'm not sure
whether Alan disagrees or whether this "constraint" was implicit in what he
was saying.
In case it *was* implicit, I think it needs to be stated explicitly :)
before folks start scribbling down models.
"Productivity" also should be defined more clearly before people start
scribbling.
(I also have doubts about the profit rate necessarily falling, if productivity
rises, unless capitalists disaccumulate.)
Andrew Kliman