Jerry's ope-l 3079, which replied to my ope-l 3075, did not address what I
believe to be some very relevant points.
Jerry repeated his view that results obtained by means of the v = 0 depend,
and by implication, necessarily depend, on that assumption. HE FAILED TO
ADDRESS MY CRITIQUE, IN OPE-L 3075, OF THIS VERY POINT:
"I also do not agree that the results obtained by use of the v = 0 assumption
are always dependent on that assumption. What is true is that *often* one
cannot correctly *infer* that the results obtained by means of an assumption
also hold true in the absence of that assumption. But it is also incorrect to
infer that the results fail to hold true! The results may or may not hold, in
other words, so that additional work is needed to find out. Moreover, note my
use of the word 'often'; *some* inferences obtained by use of an assumption
also yield conclusions for cases in which the assumption does not hold. For
instance, the above use of v = 0 did permit valid inferences to be made
concerning the magnitude of the profit rate when v > 0."
I also do not think that Jerry's responses to my folllowing paragraph actually
engaged the issue:
"The other valid use is this. When one is studying a question or questions
the
answer(s) to which one *knows ahead of time* do not depend on whether the
magnitude of v, or whether it is rising, falling, or constant, I think it is
quite legitimate to abstract from changes in v by setting v = 0. One does so
not (or not solely) because it is thereby 'simpler to get formal, quantitative
"results".' One may be doing so because one is thereby able to study the
question(s) at hand in their 'pure' form, without the intrusion of extraneous
factors, and not because one cares about the numerical results. That is the
case when one studies certain *qualitative* implications of simultaneous vs.
temporal valuation on the magnitude of the profit rate-the relative sizes of
the two rates, the possible divergence in their movements over time, etc. Or
one may be doing so because one is concerned to discuss the operationalization
of certain concepts or measures under particular conditions in which the size
and movement of v is a minor issue that can be dealt with later. That was the
case in the extended discussion Duncan and I had on the internal rate of
return under conditions of a falling unit value. In most of that discussion,
neither of us was concerned to get correct numerical results for the impact of
falling values on the IRR."
Jerry responded to the 2nd sentence: "How does one know ahead of time the
answers? Don't bother answering -- that was a rhetorical question.
"Why don't you in this case hold v *constant* and then verify that the results
are not fundamentally altered if v increases and decreases?"
Jerry responded to the 4th sentence: "This is *too* pure for my tastes. How
can v be an 'extraneous factor' for
the profit rate when v is included in the formula for the profit rate?"
NONE OF THESE COMMENTS ADDRESS WHETHER V = 0 IS BEING USED VALIDLY.
The answer to Jerry's "rhetorical" question is very simple: prior
investigation has shown that the answers do not depend on the magnitude or
variation of v. Therefore the answer to his 2nd question is that this
doesn't need to be re-verified. To understand these answers, however, one has
to understand that not all results depend on the particular assumptions
adopted.
His 3rd comment moves into the realm of taste, about which there is no sense
arguing. It is also based on a misunderstand of the question being addressed,
which is not "the profit rate" in general.
I also have to say that I do not find this kind of critique of fine points of
investigative methodology helpful, especially stuff like the 2nd comment. I
do what I find helps me understand things better. Why is it anyone else's
concern? This reaction is what was behind my "Miss Manners of methodology"
comment. (For those outside the US: "Miss Manners," aka Judith Martin, is a
well known writer on etiquette.)
I also think Jerry's response to the following was non-responsive. I had
quoted Jerry's comment that "there is no point in 'scribbling', i.e. jotting
down numbers and building models, until we can agree what the purpose at hand
is and what
would constitute legitimate assumptions." In reply I wrote
"Why should I have to accept either the purpose or the assumptions of your
model before you write it down? All development of models would be paralyzed
forever if anyone waited for the agreement of his/her audience.
"Moreover, what we are discussing at present are the implications of temporal
vs. simultaneous valuation and pricing. If you don't like the (non-)models
you've seen, but you have even the slightest doubt that the conclusions drawn
from comparative statics fail to hold true (in all but peculiar special cases)
when one moves to a dynamic context, then *you* write down a model that you
*do* like, with assumptions that you *do* consider legitimate, and your doubts
will be ended. If they aren't, then post the model. Alan has graciously
agreed to help end your (and everyone's) doubts; I'll also be happy to pitch
in. Neither of us wish to criticize your assumptions. The point is to study
the implications of temporal vs. simultaneous valuation and pricing, to show
that your own model, whatever it is, will generate rather different results in
these two cases (I am stating Alan's conjecture in its strong form, about
which I have already expressed reservations). I can't see what possible
objection you could have to understanding better the implicit models you
already carry around in your head."
Jerry's only response was to say that the 2nd sentence of my reply was
exaggerated. Whether or not that is the case, note that JERRY FAILED EITHER
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAD PROVIDED A REASON FOR HIM TO WRITE DOWN HIS OWN
MODEL, OR TO DISPUTE THIS. HE GAVE US NO OBJECTION TO THE GOAL OF
UNDERSTANDING HIS OWN IMPLICIT MODELS, YET NEITHER DID HE INDICATE THAT HE IS
WRITING ONE DOWN AND INVESTIGATING ITS DYNAMICAL BEHAVIOR.
Why should he have to write down a model? He shouldn't. But if he doesn't
like my "models" and my "assumptions," then it might be more fruitful for him
to do what he recommends rather than chastise me for not doing so.
The following quotation by Jerry of my post is out-of-context, and his reply
is therefore non-responsive to the main thrust of my remarks at this point.
"> Why simple reproduction?-that's
> not realistic. Why a uniform profit rate?--that's not realistic. Why no
> fixed capital?, why are workers paid in kind?, why is there no technical
> change? why only two departments, why?, why?, why?, why?, why?
"Since I stated clearly in the last post that my objections were not based
on whether an assumption was 'unrealistic' per se, why? why? why? are you
asking me all of the above questions?"
My remarks, in context:
"I do NOT think it is legitimate to scrutinize and critique a NON-model based
on the "assumptions" made, and least not by the same means as one uses
(legitimately) to scrutinize and critique a model. Ted and I have suffered
this treatment for over ten years now. Alan has indicated that he's suffered
it for a rather long time, too. I don't fault anyone for this. I think that
people simply do not understand the difference between *models*, on the one
hand, and *illustrations* and *examples* of properties governing transitions
between one dynamic state and another. The former operationalize certain
assumptions concerning the behavior of agents and/or the interconnections of
certain assumed processes and structures. Their results depend on the
assumptions made. The latter employ particular assumptions because *some* set
of assumptions is needed for illustrative purposes, but they do not constitute
a claim that the assumptions mirror reality, even approximately, and the
results they are meant to illustrate do NOT depend on the particular
assumptions made. Therefore the critique of the assumptions is utterly
irrelevant.
"One example of the latter are Ted's and my illustrations that supplies and
demands can be equal, simple reproduction can take place, and a uniform profit
rate can be achieved, if exchanges take place on the basis of nonstationary
prices. It is very easy to miss or fail to confront the implications of this
if one starts picking at the assumptions of the illustration as if it were
meant to be a model of how capitalism works. Why simple reproduction?-that's
not realistic. Why a uniform profit rate?--that's not realistic. Why no
fixed capital?, why are workers paid in kind?, why is there no technical
change? why only two departments, why?, why?, why?, why?, why? Amidst this
continual din, Sraffianism falls in the forest but there's too much noise to
hear it, the purpose of the illustration is lost, the whole thing is reduced
to an absurdity. Having themselves made a model out of a non-model, people
forget one simple point: none of the particular assumptions have any bearing
on the results whatsoever.
AS NOTED ABOVE IN ANOTHER CONTEXT, JERRY DOES NOT RESPOND TO WHAT IS THE KEY
POINT OF THESE PARAGRAPHS, THAT "THE CRITIQUE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS IS UTTERLY
IRRELEVANT," BECAUSE "NONE OF THE PARTICULAR ASSUMPTIONS HAVE ANY BEARING ON
THE RESULTS WHATSOEVER." Instead, Jerry somehow construes my characterization
of ten years of response to a model of Ted's and mine as questions to him and
as a contention that he was critiquing v = 0 on the grounds of realism. No,
Jerry, the point is this: in many contexts, CRITIQUE OF THE v = 0 ASSUMPTION
IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE RESULTS WHATSOEVER.
JERRY ALSO AVOIDS ADDRESSING MY CHALLENGE TO THIS STATEMENT OF HIS: "to
vacate wages and v from the analysis entirely requires us to *fundamentally*
depart from both Marx's analysis and the analysis of capitalism itself." MY
CHALLENDE WAS THIS: "You are now discussing Marx and saying v = 0
fundamentally departs from his analysis. How should this claim of yours be
TESTED?" ... are we going to slip back into the morass that Ted addressed, in
which what Marx said, wrote, and meant is assumed to be unknowable in
principle, the night in which all interpretations are black?" It is true that
Jerry doesn't what to address at this point what Marx wrote. But I'm not
asking for that. I'm asking him to address how his interpretive claim is to
be TESTED.
I don't feel like addressing other aspects of Jerry's reply at the moment. I
think a requirement of dialogue is that one not only respond, but respond to
the main thrust of what the other is saying. When I find this happening, then
I'll address the other aspects.
Andrew Kliman