In message Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:16:57 -0800 (PST),
"A.B.Trigg -Andrew Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@open.ac.uk> writes:
>Now, I
> suppose where I differ from you - and it is helpful to sharpen this up
> - is that I don't think this is the key to the monopoly capital view.
> In the monopoly capital view there is a representative monopolist which
> has an increase in potential profits as it restricts output to force up
> the price. Baran and Sweezy actually set things up in this neoclassical
> way.
> The core of the monopoly capital model is a neoclassical representative
> firm and the Keynesian accelerator model. I am not saying that some of
> this doesn't come from Kalecki, but the point is that they bastardize
> part of Kalecki - his scenario of the unrealised profits just for
> capitalists in the worker consumption goods sector.
Andrew,
I don't have my sources here (including Monopoly Capital and my essay on
Sweezy in the Maxine Berg book) so I can't challenge your argument. However,
my recollection is that Baran/Sweezy drew directly upon Joseph Steindl (who
was working off Kalecki here). Is Steindl the culprit, then?
Surely, too, if there is unrealised surplus value in the worker
consumption goods sector for Kalecki, then that characterises the economy as
a whole--- that the equilibrium output falls to that level in which no
unrealised surplus value is being produced.
cheers,
mike
---------------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 872-0494; Home fax: (604) 872-0485
Lasqueti Island: (250) 333-8810
e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca