Mike.
Yes, you are right that overall output falls in response to the increase in
monopoly power, for Kalecki. And this is why the additional profit is not
realised. But, I think that Baran and Sweezy posit that in response to the
increase in monopoly power there should, in this initial stage be an
increase in profits - as neoclassical theory predicts. The realisation
problem, for them, is when the cut in output feeds back to investment.
As you suggest, I think that this does come from Steindl - at least
this feedback to investment does. It would be interesting to take another
look at the initial stage in the analysis, the initial potential increase in
profits, where Steindl might be more close to Kalecki than Baran and Sweezy.
I know that Fred Lee, who wrote the book on Oxford Economists, disagrees
with me on Steindl, but I never got round to checking out his objections.
Yours.
Andrew.
---------
From: ope-l
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [OPE-L:4524] Re: Mandel vs. Baran-Sweezy
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 12:18PM
Mike wrote:
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