Andrew wrote in [OPE-L:3081]:
> Jerry repeated his view that results obtained by means of the v = 0 depend,
> and by implication, necessarily depend, on that assumption.
No, what I said had to do with under what conditions the v = 0 assumption
is illegitimate. Whether the results "necessarily depend" on that
assumption is a matter to be examined in each individual case where the
assumption is made. In any event, it can not be assumed _a priora_ that
the results that are obtained where v = 0 will necessarily hold where v >
0.
> HE FAILED TO
> ADDRESS MY CRITIQUE, IN OPE-L 3075, OF THIS VERY POINT:
No need to shout, Andrew.
[Unfortunately, I will have to excerpt longer portions from Andrew's post
than I would prefer in order to avoid further misunderstandings. My
apologies, in advance, to all for the excessive byte count].
> "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."
See above.
> 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."
The issue that *you* seem to want me to engage at this point has to do
with whether your use of the v = 0 assumption in the above discussions is
legitimate. This violates the agreement that I thought we had regarding
how we were going to approach this topic in stages. At this point, I am
*only* discussing the meaning of the assumption _in general_ and not its
relevance to Marx, Okishio, Kliman, Foley, et al..
Having said the above, let me repeat that I do not think that v is an
"extraneous factor" if the discussion concerns profit rate determination.
> NONE OF THESE COMMENTS ADDRESS WHETHER V = 0 IS BEING USED VALIDLY.
We first have to agree on the meaning and implications of the assumption
before we can state whether it is being used validly in particular
instances.
> 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.
To answer the above concretely, I would have to talk about what Marx wrote
and Andrew's and others' interpretations of Marx (especially as it relates
to the maximum rate of profit). That would be premature at this stage of
the discussion.
> 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.)
Well ... we already know that we have different perspectives on
methodology (perhaps best seen in our exchanges on "levels of
abstraction"). You might not find such a discussion "helpful": I, and
perhaps others, disagree. I am of the opinion that a critical
methodological evaluation should happen _prior to_ our jotting down
numbers and equations since every model embodies certain methodological
principles and postulates, whether stated or implicit. [NB: In previous
discussions on OPE-L on methodology no one offered the opinion that since
Andrew did not agree with what some others had written that made him Miss
Manners or the equivalent].
> 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.
No, Andrew I am am *not* scribbling numbers at present. Others on the
list, it appears, have also balked at Alan's challenge.
I am quite unclear about what you mean about the difference between models
and illustrations and examples since you have (am I not correct?) referred
to some models that you have developed in the past on this list.
As for the question of properties governing transitions between one
dynamic state and another, I am not discussing that question now.
> 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.
I am not chastising you -- any more than you were "berating" Allin (see
#3082).
> 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?"<snip for brevity, JL>
> 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."
(1) That is an assertion.
(2) As noted previously, I did not say that my objection was based on
whether an assumption is "unrealistic."
(3) Andrew has not substantively responded to the fundamental points that
*I* was making.
> 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.
See above. Also note that I was not referring specifically to Ted and your
responses to a model.
> 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.
No, Andrew: I was responding to your question "Which is it, Jerry?"
followed by "Again you're violating the order of discussion you yourself
proposed." And your quote above regarding how an interpretive claim can
be "tested" *does* concern Marx -- the very topic you asked me not to
discuss now.
> 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.
As I do not feel that you have responded yet to my comments of substance,
I as well will wait.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry