tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post6276993000011922917..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: On Ajit Sinha On SraffaRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-53428269506153187692017-01-07T14:13:37.042-05:002017-01-07T14:13:37.042-05:00«one can find elements of a critique of neoclassic...«one can find elements of a critique of neoclassical economics in Parts I and II of Sraffa's book, before he gets to his analysis of the choice of technique»<br />Indeed, but that's a bit reductionist: the book is not meant to be that critique, it is meant as a «basis for a critique»; that is my impression is that in Sraffa's aim it was important for what it implied rather than what it literally said, as a stepping stone, as a forward base from which to start the attack.<br /><br />And I think that the implication is demonstrating that the neoclassical "theory" of production is pure handwaving, and that even a trivial theory of production is not compatible with the "political" aims of the neoclassical approach (that «theory of value and distribution»).<br /><br />It is quite good that as preparatory work it was also constructive, it is disheartening that it was so vehemently ignored that the «critique» never took hold. Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-46000286734925661982017-01-03T07:21:54.930-05:002017-01-03T07:21:54.930-05:00I think one can find elements of a critique of neo...I think one can find elements of a critique of neoclassical economics in Parts I and II of Sraffa's book, before he gets to his analysis of the choice of technique. This observation agrees with Sinha's point that there is more to the CCC than reswitching. But Sinha wants to go further.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-32613010033275403092017-01-02T18:41:05.055-05:002017-01-02T18:41:05.055-05:00«my impression is that P Sraffa wrote his little b...«my impression is that P Sraffa wrote his little book as a polemic against neoclassical models.»<br />«built a (towards a) neoclassical model of production of commodities by means of commodities,»<br /><br />I read "POCBMOC: Prelude to a critique of economic theory" so long ago (and several times since), but not recently, but I am pleased on double checking with its "Preface" to read:<br /><br />«In a system in which, day after day, production continued unchanged in those respects, the marginal product of a factor (or alternatively the marginal cost of a product) would not merely be hard to find --- it would not be there to be found.»<br />«It is, however, a peculiar feature of the set of propositions now published that, although they do not enter into any discussion of the marginal theory of value and distribution, the have have nevertheless been designed to serve as the basis for a critique of that theory.»<br /><br />And that's the whole big deal, for which his work has been vehemently ignored, at least on the other side of the Pond :-).<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-63988823204759599342016-12-31T06:09:03.830-05:002016-12-31T06:09:03.830-05:00Read that article a few days ago and wondered what...Read that article a few days ago and wondered what you would say, interesting as the Sinha article.<br /><br />Uhmmmm, but I disagree that Sraffa's work was a return to classical models, I think that it is the peak of neoclassical models; my impression is that P Sraffa wrote his little book as a polemic against neoclassical models. My explanation:<br /><br />* Neoclassical models lack entirely a theory of capital and production, they have just handwaving: one hand waves "homogenous capital" the other hand waves "production function". All they have is commodities markets on the consumption side; the production side is hand waved away.<br /><br />* So P Sraffa wondered "what would happen if neoclassical models had a theory of capital and production", built a (towards a) neoclassical model of production of commodities by means of commodities, and he demonstrated that even in trivial neoclassical production models the 3 fables of JB Clark can't hold, and therefore the whole was inconsistent, capital and production theory can't be just hand waved away.<br /><br />Consider the debate with Samuelson: it was all about the impact of P Sraffa's work on the lack of a theory of capital and production in neoclassical models. The major conclusion by Samuelson was that any production theory with two or more capital commodities is incompatible with a general neoclassical model. That too was soon hand-waved away by neoclassical Economists.<br /><br />I think that neoclassical Economics at the time were regarded as the continuation of classical political economy, and JM Keynes used "classical" to refer to Marshall etc. too. It was not thought that what we today call neoclassicals models were a different approach (despite JB Clark's work) from the classical one. The marginalist approach was considered just a more formal approach to classical political economy. Mainly a degree of emphasis: classicals focused on the production side, marginalists on the consumption side. <br /><br />My impression is that when P Sraffa writes that his model is not even marginalist, that's not because he wants to distinguish it from marginalist models, but to point that it is so simple that it does not even need to be marginalist, and yet the 3 fables don't hold.<br /><br />The major contribution of P Sraffa to the classical tradition was that he managed to define in his model a "numeraire" that does not depend on the distribution of income, an "objective" metric of value, something that the classicals thought was a big open question, and the marginalists, having waved away capital and production, considered irrelevant.<br /><br />But while that is quite big in the history of political economy thought, in hindsight it was regarded as a curiosity (but it could yet become relevant if political economy research takes a turn for the better).<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.com