Showing posts with label Vocabulary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vocabulary. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 03, 2026

Anomalous Switch Points

This post is to remind me that I have discovered some anomalous switch points. I am introducing the concept of an anomalous switch point here.

Consider a switch point in a model of single production, with inputs of labor and circulating capital alone. At a (generic) switch point, one process replaces another in an industry that produces a commodity that exists in both techniques. Other processes can be introduced or removed if some capital goods are used only in one of the two processes for the common industry. The switch point is on the wage frontier formed by the outer envelope of the wage curves for all techniques. Two wage curves intersect at the switch point.

An anomalous switch point differs in some property from a generic switch point in models of circulating capital alone.

The anomalous switch points under consideration here are not flukes. A fluke switch point is one in which any permutation of some parameters destroys the qualitative property under consideration for the switch point. A switch point in which two wage curves are tangent on the frontier is an example of a fluke. A switch point in which two processes are replaced, one in each of two industries that exist in the techniques with intersecting wage curves. In this example with both types of flukes, and more, four wage curves intersect at switch point for the second kind of fluke.

Anomalous switch points include:

  • A switch point in which the same processes are operated for both techniques: This example is one of extensive rent. The levels of operation of the processes and the land that is scarce vary around the switch point.
  • Another switch point in which the same processes are operated for both techniques: This example is one of intensie and extensive rent with multiple agricultural commodities.
  • A switch point along a single wage curve: This example combines fixed capital and extensive rent. Two techniques, Nu and Omicron, have the same 'solving system' and, hence, the same wage curve. The techniques differ in the economic life of machine when operated on scarce land that pays extensive rent.

Other switch points can be considered anomalous. D'Agata (1983) has examples with non-unique and non-exisitng cost-minimizing techniques in a model of intensive rent. Two techniques are cost-minimizing before a switch point. No cost-minimizing technique exists after the switch point. I think D'Agata's examples are more challenging to Sraffa's price theory than mine. Woods (1990) also has an example in joint production, without rent.

A non-fluke switch point in a model of joint production in whcih three wage curves intersect is another anomalous switch point. Bidard and Klimovsky have a genuine switch point like this in the paper in which they introduce the concept of a fake switch point. I think I also have examples in my models that combine intensive and extensive rent.

I do not consider anomalous a switch point on the wage frontier, in which the frontier is not the outer envelope of wage curves. The wage frontier must be the outer envelope in models of single production, but researchers in joint production established last century that this property need not hold in models of joint production, including in models of extensive rent.

Fake switch points can also be anomalous. With joint production, a question arises about which process should be replaced when a new process is introduced. A fake switch point, in a model of joint production, is an intersection of (non-tangent) wage curves in which the cost-minimizing technique does not change. The intersection's location and existence depend on the numeraire. The price of a commodity produced under both techniques whose wage curves intersect varies among techniques.

A fake switch point can be anomalous in that it deviates from properties of Biard and Klimovsky's example:

  • Example fixed capital and extensive rent: Prices of commodities produced under both techniques do not vary among techniques at switch points. Price and rent vary between techniques only for non-commodities (that are free) under the non-cost-minimizing technique.

Technical terms: Switch point, Anomalous switch point, Fake switch point, Anomalous fake switch point, Fluke switch point.

References
  • D’Agata, A. 1983. The existence and unicity of cost-minimizing systems in intensive rent theory, Metroeconomica 35: 147-158.
  • Bidard, Christian and Edith Klimovsky. 2004. Switches and fake switches in methods of production. Cambridge Journal of Economics 28 (1): 88-97.
  • Vienneau, Robert L. 2024. Characteristics of labor markets varying with perturbations of relative markups. Review of Political Economy 36(2): 827-843.
  • J. E. Woods (1990) The Production of Commodities: An Introduction to Sraffa, Humanities Press International

Friday, September 22, 2023

Some Notes On Marx On Rent

Marx writes about rent extensively in Part II of Theories of Surplus Value and in volume 3 of Capital. I read Theories of Surplus Value decades ago. I have been trying to read the chapters of volume 3 on rent, that is, chapters 37 to 47.

In general, these chapters do not use Hegelian terminology, but are just a matter of mathematical economics. Marx conflates analyses I would keep separate. Maybe this is a matter of a dynamic analysis set in historical time. I suppose I do not have standing to complain about everything being argued through numerical examples.

In Chapter 37, Marx clarifies that he is discussing ground rent on unimproved land or land with permanent improvements. Capitalist farmers are assumed, along with landed property. He talks about the incentives to tenants not to make improvements. Once a lease runs out, improvements will allow the landlord to raise rents. If the improvements are permanent, these improvements will henceforth enter into ground rents. Marx notes the accounting where the price of land is equal to the discounted value of yearly rents. Even so, the portion of surplus value paid out in rent should not be confused with interest.

Table 1: My Preferred Terminology and Marx's
My Technical TermMarx's Technical Term
Extensive rentDifferential rent I
Intensive rentDifferential rent II
?Absolute rent
External intensive rent?

Chapter 38 starts the analysis of differential rent of the first kind, and Chapter 39 has numeric examples in tables. Marx discusses the case of waterfalls providing power to a factory. Those capitalists without access to the waterfalls, I guess, use steam power. He combines an analysis of physical fertility with nearness to markets. Marx says the most fertile land is not cultivated first. Improvements in transportation can change the ranking of lands. I like the example of the Erie Canal. More than one kind of agricultural product can be produced, but one is dominant in Marx's analysis. Anyways, he considers different arbitrary orders in which lands may be cultivated when discussing extensive rent. Also he considers cases where more of a type of land is discovered; supplies of land are not fixed in the very long run. Prices of production prevail. Capital investments are in monetary terms, despite Marx having shown in earlier chapters that prices of production of, say, seed, fertilizers, ploughs may vary with distribution.

Marx has something like a long-run demand curve for consumer goods:

The ... assumption is that total demand keeps pace with the increase in the total product. First, one need not imagine such an increase coming about abruptly, but rather gradually... Secondly, it is not true that the consumption of necessities of life does not increase as they become cheaper. The abolition of the Corn Laws in England proved the reverse to be the case (F. Newman, Lectures on Political Economy, London, 1851, p.158. — Ed.); the opposite view stems solely from the fact that large and sudden differences in harvests, which are mere results of weather, bring about at one time an extraordinary fall, at another an extraordinary rise, in grain prices. While in such a case the sudden and short-lived reduction in price does not have time to exert its full effect upon the extension of consumption, the opposite is true when a reduction arises from the lowering of the regulating price of production itself, i.e., is of a long-term nature. Thirdly, a part of the grain may be consumed in the form of brandy or beer; and the increasing consumption of both of these items is by no means confined within narrow limits. Fourthly, the matter depends in part upon the increase in population and in part on the fact that the country may be grain-exporting, as England still was long after the middle of the 18th century, so that the demand is not solely regulated within the confines of national consumption. Finally, the increase and price reduction in wheat production may result in making wheat, instead of rye or oats, the principal article of consumption for the masses, so that the demand for it may grow if only for this reason, just as the opposite may take place when production decreases and prices rise. -- Karl Marx, Capital, volume 3, Chapter 39.

Chapter 40 is the start of Marx's discussion of intensive rent, or differential rent of the second kind. He does not discuss it separately from differential rent, but adds it to his analysis. Intensive rent involves the returns to capital, in monetary units, when added to land of a given type. Marx does not treat in agriculture in a complete system. The approach I take to intensive rent is quite different. I am not sure I could always justify Marx's examples with a consistent system of equations, where the number of price and rent variables matches the number of processes, and the wage and the rate of profit frontier provides one degree of freedom. I allow for non-existence and non-uniqueness in these models.

With Marx's approach, he must consider in his numeric examples the possibility of the discovery of any type of land, changes in technology on any type, and the results of additional does of 'capital' on any type of land. He breaks these possibilities into three overarching subcases: A constant price of production of the dominant agriculture product, a falling price of production, and a rising price of production. These cases are discussed in Chapters 41, 42, and 43, respectively. Marx has subcases, in which an additional dose of capital has constant, decreasing, or rising productivity. Which land is on the margin can change. To tell the truth, I did not pay much attention to the details. In Chapter 42, Engels says an error exists in the tables that does not influence the conclusions.

I will update this post when I read further. I am interested if Marx justifies the existence of no cultivated land with no rent by the theory of intensive rent. And where does absolute rent come from?

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

Some Books About History Of Socialism And So On

Ryan Chapman On (The History Of) Socialism

I found the above video fairly reasonable. Chapman tends to depict history as a debate about ideas, with little about material developments. In other videos, he seems unreliable on the new left, post modernism, and identity politics. My Marx includes a mathematical economist.

This post provides some lists. As usual, I expect my lists are quite idiosyncratic. Some items, with more investigation, I might dislike.

I have recently stumbled upon Midwestern Marx.

I suppose if I want to understand the history of socialism, I should know the meaning of at least some of these terms. I have previously listed terminology for Marxism.

  • Anarchism
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism
  • Autonomism
  • Bolsheviks
  • Catastrophism: See Maximalism.
  • Communards: The members of the Paris commune, the result of a revolution in 1871, defeated by mass murder.
  • Communism
  • Council Communism
  • Critical Theory: See Franfurt School.
  • Democratic Centralism
  • Democratic Socialism
  • Dialectical Materialism: Also known as Historical Materialism.
  • Economism: The doctrine, held especially by leaders of labor unions, that political agitation should be confined to shorter hours, better pay, and better working conditions, without challenging the existence of capitalism. See Lenin's What Is To Be Done?
  • Entryism
  • Eurocomminism
  • Fabianism
  • Fordism
  • Frankfurt School: A school of thought associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Fromm, Habermas, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and Friedrich Pollock are some noted members. See Critical Theory.
  • Idealism
  • Jacobinism
  • Keynesianism
  • Leninism: See Democratic Centralism, Vanguard Party.
  • Maoism
  • Mass Worker
  • Marxism
  • Maximalism
  • Mensheviks
  • New Left
  • Operaismo (Workerism)
  • Orthodox Marxism
  • Popular Front: Alliance of all non-Nazi parties. Contrast with United Front.
  • Revisionism
  • Ricardian Socialism
  • Sewer Socialism:
  • Social Democracy
  • Social Worker
  • Socialism
  • Stalinism
  • Structuralism: Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas
  • Trotskyism
  • United Front: Alliance of leftist parties. Contrast with Popular Front.
  • Utopian Socialism
  • Vanguard Party
  • Voluntarism
  • Western Marxism: Karl Korsch, Lukacs, Gramsci, Althusser, for example.

Saturday, January 21, 2023

CCC Does Not Depend On Reswitching

The logical possibility of the reswitching of techniques is a devastating challenge to marginalism. But the Cambridge capital controversy does not depend on the presence of reswitching. I suppose I should have links for the possibilities listed below. None of these possibilities are fluke cases.

One might make a distinction between the reswitching of techniques and the recurrence of techniques. In both cases a technique is cost-minimizing at two non-overlapping ranges of the wage. If only one technique is cost-minimizing at wages between these ranges, that is reswitching. If more than one technique is cost-minimizing between, then one should talk about the recurrence of techniques. I forget where I have seen this not very common and not very useful distinction.

Capital reversing can occur with neither the reswitching of techniques nor the recurrence of techniques occurring on the wage frontier. Reswitching and the recurrence of techniques, however, imply the existence of a switch point in which capital reversing occurs. With capital reversing, a lower rate of profits around a switch point is associated with a switch to a technique with a lower capital intensity and a lower net output per labor input. Capital intensity is measured by either the capital-labor ratio or the capital-output ratio, with capital valued at prices of production. Net output is of a given physical composition. I like to express the logical possibility of capital reversing by noting that around such a switch point, firms want to hire a greater quantity of labor at a higher wage, given net output.

A production process can be in cost-minimizing techniques at two non-overlapping ranges of the wage, with techniques not operating this process being cost-minimizing at intermediate wages. The recurrence of techniques implies process recurrence, but process recurrence can exist without the recurrence of techniques.

The reverse substitution of labor can occur without the recurrence of techniques, capital reversing, or process recurrence. The reverse substitution of labor occurs when around a switch point, the technique that is cost-minimizing at a higher wage results in the adoption of a process in some industry in which more direct labor is hired per unit of gross output in that industry.

The presence of fixed capital creates the possibility of additional effects. The analysis of the choice of technique includes the analysis of the economic life of machines. The recurrence of truncation occurs when the economic life of a machine in the cost-minimizing technique is the same at two non-overlapping ranges of the wage. Some other economic lifetime is in the cost-minimizing technique at intermediate wages.

In the theory of fixed capital, the adoption of a cost-minimizing technique around a switch point with an increased economic life of a machine can be associated with the choice of a less capital-intensive technique of production. I do not have a name for this phenomenon. As far as I know, nobody has explicitly pointed out this possibility before me, although I will not be surprised if somebody points out some text in Pasinetti (1980) or some work by Schefold.

I next turn to the theory of extensive rent, another special case of the theory of joint production. The order of fertility, also known as the order of efficiency, is the order of types of land, given the wage, from a high rate of profits downwards among wage curves. Alternatively, one can take the rate of profits as given and order lands downward by wages. These orders are not necessarily the same. The order of fertility shows the order in which lands will be cultivated as requirements for use expand. Anyways the order of fertility can vary with distribution.

The order of rentability is the order of types of land from high rent per acre to low rent per acre. The order of rentability can vary with distribution.

The order of fertility need not match the order of rentability. Whether or not these orders of types of land match can vary with distribution.

One can have the reswitching of the order of fertility. Given requirements for use, the order of fertility can be the same at two non-overlapping ranges of the wage. Some other order of fertility occurs at intermediate wages. One might note this possibility does not require any variation in the cost-minimizing technique. The same processes can be operated for industrial commodities, and the same types of land can be fully cultivated. The type of land that is only partially cultivated can be cultivated at the same level with these variations with distribution.

One can also have the reswitching of the order of rentability. Given requirements for use, the order of rentability can be the same at two non-overlapping ranges of the wage. Some other order of rentability occurs at intermediate wages. This possibility also does not require any variation in the cost-minimizing technique. As far as I know, I am the first to point out the possibility of the reswitching of the order of fertility and of the reswitching of the order of rentability.

The above descriptions of various results from the analysis of the choice of technique have all been about how cost-minimizing techniques vary around switch prices. I have not considered variations in prices of production for a single technique as distribution varies. Such variations are known as price Wicksell effects. Nor have I considered the general theory of joint production or the special case of intensive rent.

Prices of production reflect a different vision of political economy than marginalist theory.

Friday, January 20, 2023

Translation Between The Language Of Classical Economists And Marginalists

Lately, when trying to write up my results I use terminology from classical political economy. The table below maps some terms from classical political economy to terminology for marginalists.

Terminology
ClassicalMarginalist
Use valueUtility
SupplyQuantity supplied
DemandQuantity demanded
(Normal) profitsInterest
Extra profits(Pure) economic profits
Supernormal profits
Market pricesShort run prices
Natural pricesLong run prices
Prices of production

I probably am leaving some important mapping out. Nuances, at least, exist to distinguish between entries in rows in the tables. And maybe it depends on which classical or marginalist economist you read, and which of their works. I think the first row is the most questionable.

Friday, October 29, 2021

Post-Sraffian Terminology

Terms that include the word 'pattern' are my own creation, as inspired by my research program. The remainder are, as far as I am concerned, standard terminology, some of which you would be introduced to if you were taught price theory properly. (Most of what is in mainstream microeconomic textbooks is, at best, wrong.) The definitions are my own, although obviously inspired by my reading.

  • Absolute rent: A price paid for a year's services for land under cultivation due to barriers to entry to agriculture that would be otherwise manifested in persistent higher rates of profits in farming.
  • Basic commodity: A commodity that is productively consumed, either directly or indirectly, in the production of each commodity produced in an economy.
  • Capital reversing: The association of a higher rate of profits around a switch point with a cost-minimizing technique with a more capital-intensive technique. Also known as a positive real Wicksell effect.
  • Circulating capital: Produced commodities that are completely consumed in producing other commodities. Contrast fixed capital.
  • Coefficient of production: The amount of a specified commodity that is required as an input to operate a given process at a unit level or the amount of a specified commodity that is produced in operating the given process at a unit level.
  • Differential rent of the first kind: See extensive rent.
  • Differential rent of the second kind: See intensive rent.
  • Extensive rent: A price paid for a year's services for land under cultivation due to the need to cultivate more than one type of land to satisfy requirements for use while prices of production prevail.
  • External intensive rent: A price paid for a year's services for land under cultivation due to the need to more than one process, in an industry that uses negligible inputs land, so as to satisfy requirements for use while prices of production prevail. See intensive rent.
  • Factor price frontier: See wage frontier.
  • Finished good: A produced commodity that is either a consumption good, circulating capital, or a newly produced machine.
  • Fixed capital: Produced commodities that are used in producing other commodities and last over more than one production period. A good used as fixed capital is often referred to simply as a 'machine'. Contrast circulating capital.
  • Forward substitution of labor: The association of a higher rate of profits, or lower wage, around a switch point with a cost-minimizing technique in which, in one industry, the labor per unit of gross output produced is larger. Contrast with reverse substitution of labor.
  • Four-technique pattern of switch points: Occurs when there is a switch point at which four wage curves intersect.
  • Intensive rent: A price paid for a year's services for land under cultivation due to the need to operate more than one process on that land to satisfy requirements for use while prices of production prevail.
  • Intermediate good: An old machine.
  • Joint production: The phenomenon in which some production process produces more than one commodity, such as wool and mutton. Fixed capital, in which a production process produces a finished good and a machine one year older than it was when used as an input is an example. Land, which is both an input to a production process and is an unchanged output, along with a finished good, provides another example.
  • Leontief input-output matrix: A matrix of coefficients of production in models of circulating capital, where each coefficient is the amount of a specified commodity needed in the production of a unit amount of another specified commodity. Leontief matrices are often supplemented by vectors of labor coefficients, matrices for land inputs, and so on.
  • Market prices: Prices existing in markets at a particular moment in time. Market prices are consistent with inequalities in the quantities supplied and demanded and with momentary variations in the rates of profits among industries. Contrast with prices of production.
  • Natural prices: See prices of production.
  • Normal prices: See prices of production.
  • Order of efficiency: See order of fertility.
  • Order of fertility: In models with extensive rent, the order in which lands of different types are taken into cultivation, at a given rate of profits or a given wage, as the quantities in requirements for use expand. Also known as the order of efficiency.
  • Order of rentability: In models with extensive rent, the order of lands of different types from high rent per acre to zero rent, at a given rate of profits or a given wage.
  • Pattern (of switch points) for the requirements for use: Occurs with an indeterminancy in prices and levels at which processes are operated in the cost-minimizing techniques at a given rate of profits. This indeterminancy arises in models of joint reproduction due to the need to satisfy requirements for use.
  • Pattern (of switch points) in the r-order of fertility: Occurs when a switch point associated with a change in the order of fertility of land not on the margin is at the same rate of profits as a switch point on the axis for the rate of profits.
  • Pattern (of switch points) in the w-order of rentability: Occurs when a switch point associated with a change in the order of fertility of land not on the margin is at the same wage as a switch point on the axis for the wage.
  • Pattern (of switch points) over the axis for the rate of profits: Occurs when there is a switch point at a wage of zero.
  • Pattern (of switch points) over the wage axis: Occurs when there is a switch point at a rate of profits of zero.
  • Prices of production: Given technology, the rate of profits or the wage, and requirements for use, prices of commodities consistent with the smooth reproduction of a capitalist economy. Contrast with market prices.
  • Process: A process of production is specified by the quantities of labor, of a specified type of land, and of specified commodities needed to produce a specified output. Under joint production, the output can consist of more than one commodity. A technique consists of a set of processes.
  • Rate of profits: The quotient of the difference between revenue and costs in a process and the costs paid in advances at the start of the production period. The rate of profits is the same for all operated processes when prices of production prevail if there are no barriers to entry or other causes of persistent differences among industries.
  • Recurrence of processes: Occurs when a process is in the cost-minimizing techniques, at two disjoint ranges of the rate of profits, while that process is not in the techniques cost-minimizing at the rates of profits between these two ranges. The recurrence of processes always arises when techniques recur, but the recurrence of processes can occur without the recurrence of techniques.
  • Recurrence of techniques: Occurs when one technique is cost-minimizing at two disjoint ranges of the rate of profits, while one or more other techniques are cost-minimizing at the rates of profits between these two ranges. The recurrence of techniques always arises when techniques reswitch, but the recurrence of techniques can occur without the reswitching of techniques.
  • Requirements for use: The level and composition of net output or of a consumption basket, specified as given in models of production.
  • Reswitching of techniques: Occurs when one technique is cost-minimizing at two disjoint ranges of the rate of profits, while another technique is cost-minimizing at the rates of profits between these two ranges.
  • Reswitching pattern (of switch points): Occurs when two wage curves are tangent at a switch point.
  • Reverse substitution of labor: The association of a higher rate of profits, or lower wage, around a switch point with a cost-minimizing technique in which, in one industry, the labor per unit of gross output produced is smaller. Contrast with forward substitution of labor.
  • Scale factor for the rates of profits: When markups among industries hold persistent and stable ratios among themselves, a scale factor that determines the rate of profits from relative markups. See the rate of profits.
  • Single production: See circulating capital and contrast with joint production.
  • Sraffa effect: The reswitching of techniques, capital reversing, the reverse substitution of labor, the recurrence of techniques, the recurrence of processes, and other effects discovered through the analysis of prices of production that are inconsistent with obsolete marginalist dogmas.
  • Sraffa matrix: A Leontief matrix for a viable technique when at least one commodity is basic and the maximum rate of profits for the submatrix of non-basic commodities exceeds the maximum rate of profits for the submatrix for basic commodities. See pp. 123-124 in Kurz and Salvadori (1995).
  • Structural economic dynamics: The variation in the relative sizes of industries and in prices of production as the result of technical progress, variation in market structure, variations in the rate of growth, and variation in the relative quantities of commodities in consumption baskets.
  • Switch point: A point at which two wage curves intersect. Often defined to apply only to switch points on the wage frontier.
  • Technique: A set of processes. In models of circulating capital, a technique contains one process for producing each commodity in the gross output of an economy.
  • Three-technique pattern of switch points: Occurs when there is a switch point at which three wage curves intersect.
  • Wage curve: For a given technique, the wage as a function of the rate of profits in a system of prices of production. Also known as a wage-rate of profits curve.
  • Wage frontier: In models of circulating capital, the outer envelope of wage curves. Also known as the wage-rate of profits frontier or, misleadingly, the factor-price frontier.
  • Wicksell effect, price: The variation in the numeraire value of capital goods with the rate of profits for a given technique.
  • Wicksell effect, real: The variation in the numeraire value of capital goods with the technique at a given rate of profits. Around a switch point with a negative real Wicksell effect, a higher wage or lower rate of profits is associated with a larger value of capital per person-year employed in a stationary state.

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Some Kinds Of Rent

Special Cases in the Analysis of Rent
TypeLandAgricultural ProcessesIndustrial Processes
Extensive rentMultiple types of land, each of a given qualityFor a given type of land, one process producing corn is availableFor a given commodity other than corn, one process for producing it is available
Intensive rent properOne type of homogeneous landFor the given type of land, multiple processes are available for producing cornFor a given commodity other than corn, one process for producing it is available
External intensive rentOne type of homogeneous landFor the given type of land, one process for producing corn is availableFor a given commodity other than corn, multiple processes for producing it are available

Economists have explored several kinds of rent in post-Sraffian price theory (Kurz and Salvadori 1995: 279). Suppose, as a simplifying assumption, that one commodity, 'corn', can be produced on land. Land is a non-produced commodity that emerges from a production process unchanged. Furthermore, assume that no pure joint production occurs otherwise. Let requirements for use be specified as a vector of net outputs.

The table at the head of this post lists three kinds of rent. They are characterized by the appending of three additional assumptions. One assumption deals with whether all land is homogeneous, or whether multiple types of land exist. Another assumption states whether one or more than one process is known for operating on any of the given types of land. A final assumption concerns whether different processes are available to produce commodities that do not require direct inputs of land in their production.

As far as I know, a general model of rent, short of the general theory of joint production, has yet to be developed that considers the relaxation and mixing of these assumptions. Those building on the work of Alberto Quadrio Curzio, I guess, have a ways to go. (I have just started reading the reference below.) Absolute rent may be introduced by postulating persisting, non-uniform ratios of rates of profits across sectors. An obvious generalization would consider the possibility of producing more than one agricultural commodity. In a mixed model of extensive and intensive rent, more than one type of land would exist, and more than one production process would be available for at least some types of land. Furthermore, one might introduce fixed capital, thereby raising the question of the cost-minimizing choice of the economic life of machines.

My impression is that results of the circulating capital model generalize to simple models of extensive rent. The dependence of the price system on requirements for use in models of extensive rent, however, is an important difference in the models. Once one considers other types of rent or any of the above complications, issues that arise in general models of joint production also arise in models of rent. These issues include upward-sloping wage curves on the frontier and the non-uniqueness or the non-existence of a cost-minimizing technique at a given rate of profits.

Reference
  • Baranzini, Mauro L., Claudia Rotondo, and Roberto Scazzieri. 2015. Resources, Production and Structural Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saturday, May 09, 2020

Financial Economics

This is a list of some of what I think one should know if one wants to talk to investors interested in theory. This post is not about making money and is probably not up-to-date. My references are fairly popular, and mostly old. I include one recent popular book as an example. Most of the references I do not recall very well, and I have not read Ben Graham. But many seem to know that Warren Buffet recommends this book. This post is non-critical. Keen and Quiggin in Debunking Economics and Zombie Economics, each have a chapter of criticism.

  • Behavioral finance: The application of behavioral economics to finance.
  • Beta: A parameter in the CAPM.
  • Black Scholes formula: A formula for pricing options.
  • Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): A model that relates the risk of an asset to the market as a whole.
  • Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH): A model in which all information is quickly built into asset prices. The EMH comes in at least three types.
  • Equity Premium Puzzle: The observed phenomena for stocks (or shares) to trade at higher prices, as compared to bonds, than can be justified by the EMH.
  • Lévy distribution: A family of probability distributions that, except for the limiting case of the Gaussian distribution, have an infinite variance. The Cauchy distribution is also a member. Benoit Mandelbrot recommends this as a model for changes in asset prices.
  • Martingale Theory: A branch of mathematics in which a stochastic process exhibits a special case of the Markov property. I recall learning about a drunkards walk and the gambler's ruin problem, but I do not recall this term in any of my formal math courses.
  • Modigliani and Miller (M and M): A model that implies, under idealizations, that it does not matter if corporations finance investments with equity or debt.
  • Noise trading: Trading on random variations in the price of an asset, instead of fundamentals. I know of this from some late 80s work of DeLong, Shleifer, Summers, and Waldmann.
  • Stochastic Calculus, also known as Ito Calculus: A branch of mathematics in which one can talk about the derivatives and integrals of a set of random variables indexed on continuous time. Such a stochastic process is different from a single realization).
  • Value-at-risk: A formula that applies to an investment portfolio.
  • Volatility skew: An anomaly, inconsistent with the Black-Scholes formula, that emerged in markets for options.

One also needs to know about puts, calls, indices, credit default swaps, types of spreads (e.g. a broken wing butterfly spread) and so on if one wants to be a financial analyst. As usual, this is an aspirational post. I do not claim to know all of this, and maybe I have gotten some of the above incorrect.

References

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Classification of Finite Simple Groups: A Proved Theorem?

Figure 1: Lattice Diagram for Group of Symmetries of the Square
"I shall now mention something I obviously do not understand." - Ian Hacking (2014, p. 18)
1.0 Introduction

This has nothing to do with economics. It is my attempt to get my mind around a place where I can get a glimmer of some exciting mathematics being done in my lifetime.

Mathematicians have stated a theorem for classifying finite simple groups. Whether they have proven this theorem is an intriguing question in the philosophy of mathematics.

A finite simple group is a group with a finite number of elements and no proper normal subgroup. This definition contains several technical terms. In this post, I try to explain these terms and the setting of the theorem for classifying simple groups. This preamble raises several questions:

  • What is a group? A proper subgroup? A normal subgroup?
  • How can a finite, non-simple group be factored into a composition of simple groups?

I try to clarify the answers to these questions by means of a lengthy example. You can probably find this better expressed elsewhere. In working this out, I relied heavily on Fraleigh's textbook, which is the only book in the references that I have read, albeit mostly in the second edition.

2.0 The Group of Symmetries of the Square

A group is a generalization, in some sense, of a multiplication table. Formally, it is a set with a binary operation, in which the binary operation satisfies three axioms. A finite group is a group in which the set contains a finite number of elements.

To illustrate, I consider the set of symmetries of the square (Figure 2). These eight elements of the set are like the numbers along the top and left side of a multiplication table. Each element is an operation that can be performed on a square, leaving the square superimposed on itself. Each operation is described in the right column of Figure 2. The third column provides a picture of the operation. The four vertices of the square are numbered so that one can see the result of the operation. The second column specifies each operation as a permutation of the numbered vertices. The first row in each permutation lists the vertices, while the second row shows which of the original vertices ends up in the place of each vertex. The first column introduces a notation for naming each operation. The remainder of this post is expressed in this notation.

Figure 2: Elements of a Group

The group operation, *, is function composition. Let a and b be elements of the set {ρ0, ρ1, ρ2, ρ0, μ0, μ1, σ0, σ1}. The product a*b is defined to be the single operation that is equivalent to first performing the operation a on the square and then performing the operation b on the result. (Many textbooks define functional composition from right-to-left, instead.) Table 1 is the multiplication table for this group, under these definitions. For example, rotating a square 90 degrees clockwise twice is equivalent to rotating the square clockwise through 180 degrees. Thus:

ρ1 * ρ1 = ρ2
Table 1: The Group D4
*ρ0ρ1ρ2ρ3μ0μ1σ0σ1
ρ0ρ0ρ1ρ2ρ3μ0μ1σ0σ1
ρ1ρ1ρ2ρ3ρ0σ0σ1μ1μ0
ρ2ρ2ρ3ρ0ρ1μ1μ0σ1σ0
ρ3ρ3ρ0ρ1ρ2σ1σ0μ0μ1
μ0μ0σ1μ1σ0ρ0ρ2ρ3ρ1
μ1μ1σ0μ0σ1ρ2ρ0ρ1ρ3
σ0σ0μ0σ1μ1ρ1ρ3ρ0ρ2
σ1σ1μ1σ0μ0ρ3ρ1ρ2ρ0

A group is defined by the following three axioms:

  • The binary operation in the group is associative. That is, for all a, b, and c in the group:
(a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
  • The group contains an identity element. There exists an element e in the group such that for all a in the group:
e * a = a * e = a
  • Every element of the group has an inverse. For all a in the group, there exists an element a-1 in the group such that:
a * a-1 = a-1 * a = e

Associativity is tedious to check for D4. Associativity implies that one can drop parenthesis below. ρ0 is the identity element. Every row and column in the multiplication table for D4 contains ρ0; thus, every element has an inverse.

An Abelian group is one in which the binary operation is commutative. The group of symmetries of the square is not Abelian. For an Abelian group, the multiplication table is symmetric across the principal diagonal; it does not matter to the result in which order one performs the operation for two arguments. The following two equations illustrates that D4 is not Abelian:

μ01 = σ1
ρ10 = σ0

In words, flipping a square around its horizontal axis of symmetry and then rotating it ninety degrees clockwise is not equivalent to rotating it ninety degrees clockwise and then then reflecting it across that axis. The result of the first composition of operations is equivalent to reflecting the square across the diagonal axis of symmetry running from the south west to the north east. The second composition of operations is equivalent to flipping the square across the other diagonal.

One can also set up equations in a group, for example:

ρ12*x = μ0

Then x must be σ0. Solving a Rubik's cube is analogous to solving such an equation.

3.0 Proper and Improper Subgroups

Some rows and columns in Table 1 can stand alone as a group. The entries in these restricted row and columns all appear as headings in the rows and columns. These entries form a subgroup of the original group. One-fourth of the table in the upper left of Table 1 provides an example. {ρ0, ρ1, ρ2, ρ3} is a subgroup of D4 (Table 2).

Table 2: A Subgroup of D4 with Four Elements
*ρ0ρ1ρ2ρ3
ρ0ρ0ρ1ρ2ρ3
ρ1ρ1ρ2ρ3ρ0
ρ2ρ2ρ3ρ0ρ1
ρ3ρ3ρ0ρ1ρ2

The group D4 has ten subgroups, as shown in the Lattice Diagram in Figure 1 above. Subgroups have been defined such that, for any group G, the group G is a subgroup of itself. Another trivial case, the one-element group consisting of the identity element, also provides a subgroup of G. These two subgroups are known as improper subgroups. All other subgroups are proper subgroups.

One can make a couple of observations about subgroups. The binary operation in the group is the same as the binary operation in the subgroup. The property of associativity carries over from the group to the subgroup. Since a subgroup is a group, it must contain an identity element. And that identity element must also be the identity element for the group containing the subgroup. Thus, every subgroup of D4 contains ρ0. Likewise, for every element of a subgroup, the subgroup must also contain its inverse. Finally, the number of elements in a subgroup must evenly divide the number of elements in the group.

I have shown above how the eight elements of D4 can be defined in terms of permutations. As a matter of fact, the set of permutations of (1, 2, ..., n) form a group under the operation of function composition. This permutation group is designated as Sn, and it contains n! elements. Thus, S4 contains 24 (= 4x3x2x1) elements. Not only can one find all the subgroups of D4, one can extend the group such that D4 is a subgroup of that extended group.

4.0 Isomorphic Groups

In a group, the order of rows and columns in the multiplication table are of no matter. Likewise, the names of the elements are irrelevant to the structure of the group. Two groups are isomorphic if the multiplication table for one group can be mapped into the multiplication table for another group by reordering and renaming the elements of, say, the first group. As an example, consider the groups {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1} and {ρ0, ρ2, σ0, σ1}. They each have the same number of elements, which is necessary for an isomorphism. Table 3 defines the group operation for the first group. Suppose that, in Table 3, μ0 is renamed σ0, and μ1 is renamed σ1 throughout. The resulting table will match the operation for the second group. Thus, the two groups are isomorphic.

Table 3: The Group {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1}
*ρ0ρ2μ0μ1
ρ0ρ0ρ2μ0μ1
ρ2ρ2ρ0μ1μ0
μ0μ0μ1ρ0ρ2
μ1μ1μ0ρ2ρ0

The groups in Tables 2 and 3 are NOT isomorphic. They each contain four elements. Each element, however, in the group in Table 3 is its own inverse. This is an algebraic property, preserved no matter how the elements of the group are renamed. And the group in Table 2 does not have this property. As a matter of fact, only two groups containing four elements exist, up to an isomorphism. In other words, any group with four elements is isomorphic to either the group in Table 2 or to the group in Table 3.

Furthermore, only one group, up to isomorphism, contains two elements. Its operation is defined by Table 4. All the subgroups of D4 containing two elements are isomorphic to this group and, ipso facto, to each other. The text colors of the subgroups in the lattice diagram (Figure 1) express these isomorphisms.

Table 4: The Unique Group (Up To Isomorphism) With Two Elements
*01
001
110
5.0 Normal Subgroups, Factor Groups, and Homomorphisms

Certain additional patterns are apparent in Table 1. I have already pointed out that the first four rows and columns constitute the subgroup with the operation shown in Table 2. Notice that none of the entries in the last four columns for the first four rows are in this subgroup. Likewise, none of the entries in the first four columns for the last four rows are in this subgroup. On the other hand, the entries in the remaining rows and columns in the lower right are all in this subgroup. Can you see that these observations reveal the pattern expressed in Table 4? Mathematicians express this by saying that the factor group D4/{ρ0, ρ1, ρ2, ρ3} is isomorphic to the group with two elements.

A subgroup is normal if it can be used to divide up the rows and columns in the multiplication table for the group like this. For another example, consider the subgroup {ρ0, ρ2}. Table 5 shows a reordering of the rows and columns in Table 1 to facilitate the calculation of the factor group for this subgroup. Consider dividing this grid up into 16 blocks of two rows and two columns each. Each block will contain two elements of the group D4, and which element is paired with each element does not vary among these blocks.

Table 5: The Group D4 Reordered
*ρ0ρ2ρ1ρ3μ0μ1σ0σ1
ρ0ρ0ρ2ρ1ρ3μ0μ1σ0σ1
ρ2ρ2ρ0ρ3ρ1μ1μ0σ1σ0
ρ1ρ1ρ3ρ2ρ0σ0σ1μ1μ0
ρ3ρ3ρ1ρ0ρ2σ1σ0μ0μ1
μ0μ0μ1σ1σ0ρ0ρ2ρ3ρ1
μ1μ1μ0σ0σ1ρ2ρ0ρ1ρ3
σ0σ0σ1μ0μ1ρ1ρ3ρ0ρ2
σ1σ1σ0μ1μ0ρ3ρ1ρ2ρ0

These observations can be formalized by the function defined in Table 6. For an element a of D4, let f(a) denote the map defined in Table 6. To find the value of this function, locate a in the first column. Whether this value is 0, 1, 2, or 3 is determined by the corresponding entry in the second column. For all a and b in D4:

f(a * b) = f(a) o f(b)

A map from one group to another with this property is a homomorphism. An isomorphism is a homomorphism, but a homomorphism is a more general concept. Homomorphisms do not need to leave the number of elements in the group invariant.

Table 6: A Homomorphism from D4 to {0, 1, 2, 3}
Elements of D4Image
ρ0, ρ20
ρ1, ρ31
μ0, μ12
σ0, σ13

The factor group D4/{ρ0, ρ2} is easily calculated. Replace each element of D4 in Table 5 by its image under the homomorphism in Table 6. Collapse each pair of rows and columns. One ends up with Table 7, where I have renamed the group operation, as above. The factor group D4/{ρ0, ρ2} is isomorphic to the group with four elements with the operation shown in Table 3 above. The number of elements in a factor group is the quotient of the number of elements in the original group and the number of elements in the subgroup used to form the factor group.

Table 7: The Factor Group D4/{ρ0, ρ2}
o0123
00123
11032
22301
33210

The two improper subgroups for any group are normal and yield trivial factor groups. The factor group D4/D4 is isomorphic to the one-element group whose only member is the identity element. The factor group D4/{ρ0} is isomorphic to D4. The factor groups for improper subgroups provide no information about the structure of a group.

6.0 A Subgroup that is Not Normal

Not all subgroups are normal. The subgroup {ρ0, μ0}, for example, is not a normal subgroup of D4. Table 8 proposes a map from the elements of the group to the first four natural numbers. And Table 9 illustrates another reordering of the rows and columns in Table 1, with the entries replaced by the natural numbers to which they map. If one confines oneself to the first two columns, each pair of rows could be collapsed into one, with the label from the row taken from the map. But this process breaks down for the next two and the last two columns.

Table 8: A Map from D4 to {0, 1, 2, 3} that is Not a Homomorphism
Elements of D4Image
ρ0, μ00
ρ1, σ01
ρ2, μ12
ρ3, σ13
Table 9: Another Reodering of The Group D4
*ρ0μ0ρ1σ0ρ2μ1ρ3σ1
ρ000112233
μ000332211
ρ111223300
σ011003322
ρ222330011
μ122110033
ρ333001122
σ133221100

Suppose a subgroup contains n elements. To determine if the subgroup is normal, it is sufficient to examine the first n rows and the first n columns in the reordered table. This capability follows from a theorem about what are known as left and right cosets for a subgroup.

The permuation group S4 provides another example of a subgroup that is not normal. By my calculations, D4 is NOT a normal subgroup of S4.

7.0 The Composition Series of a Group

At this point, I have completed my explanation of the lattice diagram at the top of this post, including circles, text colors, and boxes. I draw from these results to illustrate how a non-simple group, namely D4, can be expressed as a composition of factor groups.

Table 10 lists twelve series of subgroups of the group of symmetries of the square. Each series has the following properties:

  • The leftmost group in the series is the one-element group containing the identity element.
  • The rightmost group is D4.
  • Each group in the series (except D4) is a proper normal subgroup of the group immediately to the right of it in the series.

A series with these properties is known as a subnormal series of the group D4. If every group in the series is also a normal subgroup of D4, the series is a normal series of the group D4. By the last property in the bulleted list, one can calculate a factor group for each pair of immediately successive groups in the series.

Table 10: Twelve Normal and Subnormal Series for D4
Number
Factor Groups
SeriesNormal
Series
10} < D4Yes
20} < {ρ0, ρ1, ρ2, ρ3} < D4Yes
20} < {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1} < D4Yes
0} < {ρ0, ρ2, σ0, σ1} < D4Yes
0} < {ρ0, ρ2} < D4Yes
30} < {ρ0, ρ2} < {ρ0, ρ1, ρ2, ρ3} < D4Yes
0} < {ρ0, ρ2} < {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1} < D4Yes
0} < {ρ0, ρ2} < {ρ0, ρ2, σ0, σ1} < D4Yes
0} < {ρ0, μ0} < {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1} < D4No
0} < {ρ0, μ1} < {ρ0, ρ2, μ0, μ1} < D4No
0} < {ρ0, σ0} < {ρ0, ρ2, σ0, σ1} < D4No
0} < {ρ0, σ1} < {ρ0, ρ2, σ0, σ1} < D4No

The definition of an isomorphism for a subnormal series builds on the definition of isomorphism for groups. Consider the factor groups arising in each series from successive pairs of subgroups in each series. Two series are isomorphic if they contain the same of number of factor groups, in this sense, and these factor groups are isomorphic. The order in which the factor groups arise can vary among isomorphic subnormal series.

I have collected isomorphic series together, in Table 10, by means of horizontal lines in the first column. The series with one factor group is not isomorphic to any other series. The first series shown with two factor groups is not isomorphic to the other three series with two factor groups. And those three series are isomorphic to one another. All of the series with three factor groups are isomorphic to one another.

The series with three factor groups have another property. All factor groups in these series with three factor groups are simple groups. That is, they contain no proper normal subgroups. A subnormal series of a group in which all factor groups formed by the series are simple is known as a composition series. By the Jordan-Hölder Theorem, all compositions series for a group are isomorphic series. This theorem justifies one in speaking of THE composition series for a group. Finding the factor groups in a the composition series for a group is somewhat analogous to factoring a natural number. Note that D4 contains eight elements and each of the three factor groups in the composition series contain two elements. Furthermore,

8 = 23

For a natural number, the prime factors can be combined to yield the original number. Here the analogy apparently breaks down. The factor groups in a composition series for a group constrain the structure of the group, but two non-isomorphic groups can have the same composition series. But still, mathematicians have solved various problems in group theory for finite non-simple groups by use of the classification of finite simple groups.

Composition series apparently have an application in solving polynomial equations. The composition series for the permutation group S5 contains a factor group that is non-Abelian. This is connected with the insolvability of the quintic. There are formulas for zeros for cubic and fourth order polynomial, analogous to the quadratic formula. But there is no such formulas for poynomials of the fifth degree and higher.

8.0 Classification of Finite Simple Groups

At this point, I have explained how finite simple groups arise as factor groups for the composition series of any finite group. I hope that this gives some hint of why the following theorem is of interest.

Theorem: Each finite simple group is one of the following, up to an isomorphism:

  • A group of prime order.
  • An alternating group.
  • A Lie group.
  • One of 26 sporadic groups not otherwise classified.

I am aware that this this theorem uses technical terms I still have not explained, including one that I simply do not understand myself.

The sporadic groups are finite simple groups that do not fall into the other categories, although, I gather, some sporadic groups are related to one another.The sporadic group with the largest number of elements is called the Monster group. It has 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 elements.

9.0 History of the Theorem

In 1972, Daniel Gorenstein proposed that mathematicians could complete a classification of all simple groups. By the early 1980s, mathematicians had stated the theorem and those specialists who had pursued Gorenstein's program believed they had proven it. The proof, however, was scattered among (tens of?) thousands of pages in hundreds(?) of papers in many mathematics journals. No one person had probably ever understood the proof or read it in its entirety.

The proof, however, was discovered even then to be incomplete. Steve Smith and Michael Aschbacher worked on closing this gap, relating to quasithin groups. They succeeded by 2004.

Meanwhile, a number of mathematicians have been trying to simplify the proof and to restate it in one location. The ambition of these mathematicians is to produce a "second generation" proof of only a couple thousand pages.

Has a theorem been proven if only one or two mathematicians have read the proof in its entirety? How about if nobody has, which would have been the case in the 1980s if the proof had indeed been valid? Certainly, the proof of the classification theorem is not surveyable, in Wittgenstein's sense. Do mathematical results need to be established by a social process? If so, how can such social processes be characterized?

Appendix: Terms Defined or Illustrated Above

Abelian group, Associativity, Composition Series, Factor Group, Finite Group, Group, Homomorphism, Identity Element, Improper Subgroup, Inverse, Isomorphic Groups, Isomorphic Subnormal Series, Lattice Diagram, Normal Series, Normal Subgroup, Permutation Group, Proper Subgroup, Subgroup, Subnormal Series.

References
  • Michael Aschbacher (2004). The Status of the Classification of the Finite Simple Groups, Notices of the AMS, V. 51, No. 7 (Aug.): pp. 736-740.
  • Michael Aschbacher, Richard Lyons, Stephen D. Smith, and Ronald Solomon (2011). The Classification of Finite Simple Groups: Groups of Characteristic 2 Type, American Mathematical Society.
  • Nicolas Bourbaki (1943). Elements of Mathematics: Algebra I: Chapters 1-3.
  • J. H. Conway and S. P. Norton (1979). Monstrous Moonshine, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, V. 11, no. 3: pp. 308-339.
  • John B. Fraleigh (2002). A First Course in Abstract Algebra, 7th Edition, Pearson.
  • Daniel Gorenstein, Richard Lyons, and Ronald Solomon (1994). The Classification of the Finite Simple Groups, American Mathematical Society.
  • Ian Hacking (2014). Why is there Philosophy of Mathematics at all?, Cambridge University Press.
  • Daniel Kunkle and Gene Cooperman (2007). Twenty-Six Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube, ISSAC'07, 29 Jul. - 1 Aug., Waterloo, Canada.
  • Tomas Rokicki (2008). Twenty Five Moves Suffice for Rubik's Cube.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Obscure Postmodern Language

I try here to outline certain postmodern1 doctrines that, in a full development, might result in one using obscure terminology. None of this is to say that every postmodern writer using polysyllabic terminology is expressing complicated ideas in the most effective way. Nor do I want to argue that it is impossible to ever write clearly2 about (some subset) of these ideas.

People have a tendency towards reification3, towards talking as if certain abstract ideas are concrete realities. For example, they might tend to confuse relationships between people with relationships between things4. And people tend to think dualistically, or at least to categorize things into pre-existing categories. And with dividing things into two categories, one may tend to elevate one over the other, or to define the inferior in terms of the negation of the properties of the superior5. One might think that these confusions become embedded in our language6. It is not as if we have access to a language appropriate for a "view from nowhere", where nature is carved at its joints7.

Furthermore, current classifications and fundamental ideas embodied in current language have a history; our current language does not reflect how people always thought. In looking at past patterns of language and governance, one should try not to read our current way of thinking into the past8.

One might also think current classifications have a functional relationship to class structure, hegemonic9 ethnicities, patriarchal relationships, or whatever10.

I have deliberately been abstract here. But, I suppose, I might mention some examples. In economics, I think one is confused if one looks at capitalism as catallaxy, that is, purely in terms of market relationships, in which all parties are free. Furthermore, many things have been said to be socially constructed. I think here of money11, race12, gender13, and sex14.

In fully trying to explicate these ideas, one can be expected to struggle with bewitchments brought about by language. One might look for multivocalities in past texts. How have current suppositions been read into them? How might they be read from a subaltern position? How might language be expanded so as not to deny normalcy to currently marginalized groups? So reasons exist why academics thinking along postmodern trends might express themselves obscurely.

The above is not to say that these ideas cannot be criticized15.

Update (21 December 2015):
  • Am I agreeing or disaggreeing with what Robert Paul Wolff says here?
  • Noah Smith has a knee-jerk reaction to postmodernism.
  • The blogger with the pseudonym "Lord Keynes" has often complained about left-leaning postmoderns.
Footnotes
  1. For purposes of this post, I do not distinguish between deconstruction, post structuralism, various trends in the social studies of science, etc.
  2. Richard Rorty is an example of a postmodern philosopher known for clear - but not necessarily easy - writing.
  3. The popularity of the term "reification", in postmodern discourse, comes from Georg Lukás.
  4. This is how Marx defined commodity fetishism.
  5. I am thinking of how Simone de Beauvoir, early in The Second Sex, describes women being defined as the Other.
  6. Here I point to Ludwig Wittgenstein's later work, unpublished in his lifetime.
  7. I guess this relates to Jacques Derrida's claim, "There is no outside the text."
  8. Michel Foucault, in particular, offers provocative studies of changing European thought in the classical age, between the Renaissance and the nineteenth century.
  9. The popularity of the term "hegemony", in postmodern discourse, comes from Antonio Gramsci.
  10. As Marx said, "The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling classes."
  11. This is an example of how something can both be socially constructed and real. Obviously, money has quite real effects in modern societies.
  12. Think of the use of the words "Black" and "Colored" in South Africa and in the USA. In the former, they are not synonyms, while among older Americans of a certain sort, they are.
  13. I gather Judith Butler originated the concept of gender as performative.
  14. Judith Butler also questions whether sex is necessarily a biological division. People might be classified based on chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics. More than two categories exist in many of these classifications, and they do not always line up. Philip Mirowski observes somewhere that, for the International Olympic Committee (and the International Association of Athletics Federations), these classifications are a quite practical issue. After all, they are structured to find exceptional humans.
  15. For explicit references below, I only give critiques. I am sympathetic to the idea that the popularity of postmodernism among academics was connected to an inability to successfully improve material conditions for many.
References
  • Samir Amin (1998). Spectres of Capitalism: A Critique of Current Intellectual Fashions, Monthly Review Press.
  • Terry Eagleton (1996). The Illusions of Postmodernism, Blackwell.

Monday, June 02, 2014

Elements of a Taxonomy of Capital

Here are some ways of classifying capital. This post does not talk much about profit on alienation (buying low, selling high). Nor does it talk about analogies (for example, "human capital", "social capital") extending beyond production and, maybe, even economics. The definitions are my attempt to give an off-hand elaboration of the meaning of terms. I have no objection to those offering more authoritative definitions.

First division:
  • Physical capital: Physical goods that are used in the production of commodities for sale on the market.
  • Financial capital: Assets that (can be expected to) generate a stream of money payments. Examples: Annuities, stocks, bonds, a deed for rental property.
Second division (A decomposition of physical capital goods):
  • Fixed capital: Capital goods used in producing commodities that are not completely used up in one production cycle. Examples: Machinery, dams.
  • Circulating capital: Capital goods used in producing commodities that are completely used up in each production cycle. Examples: fuel for machinery, semi-finished goods that are transformed into produced commodities.
Third division (A Marxist decomposition of financial capital?):
  • Constant capital: Capital whose value is transferred unchanged into commodities produced with its aid. Includes both circulating capital and the proportion of constant capital used up, in some sense, in a production cycle.
  • Variable capital: Capital whose value yields a surplus in the value of a commodity produced with its aid.
Fourth division (The physical analog in Marxism to the above decomposition):
  • Means of production: The physical capital goods (commodities) with which commodities are produced.
  • Labor power: The ability to labor under the direction of another. Under capitalism, labor power - not labor - is bought or sold.
Fifth division (From volume 2 of Marx's Capital; see diagram above):
  • Money capital: Finance that the capitalist intends to use to purchase means of production and labor power or the money which produced commodities realizes when they are sold on the market.
  • Productive capital: Capital embodied in means of production and labor power when they are being used to produce commodities.
  • Commodity capital: Means of production and labor power or the commodities produced by the same for sale on the market.

Update (10 June 2014): I want to note this passage - more succinct than my writing - from Josh Mason:

"We shouldn't ask what capital 'really' is. It really is a quantity of money in a process of self-expansion, and it really is a mass of means of production, and it really is authority over the production process. But the particular historical questions Piketty is interested in may be better suited to thinking of capital as a claim on the social surplus than as a physical quantity of means of production. Seth Ackerman has some very interesting thoughts along these lines in his contribution to the Jacobin symposium on the book. "

Sunday, July 08, 2012

Vocabulary For Marxism

I am unsympathetic with this view:
"[Marxists] seem to talk in a dense jargon that (presumably) requires years of Marxist study to comprehend. Not weird, just obscurantist." -- Noah Smith
Mainstream economists have their own technical terms. I see nothing odd about expecting people interested in Marx to, at least, recognize the following vocabulary:
  • absolute rent
  • absolute surplus value
  • base
  • bourgeois
  • circulating capital
  • class for itself
  • class in itself
  • classical political economy
  • commodity fetishism
  • constant capital
  • department I
  • department II
  • dialectics
  • differential rent
  • expanded reproduction
  • exchange value
  • fixed capital
  • historical materialism
  • industrial reserve army
  • labor power
  • labor value
  • law of value
  • laws of motion (of capitalism)
  • market price
  • means of consumption
  • means of production
  • mode of production
  • negation of the negation
  • object
  • organic composition of capital
  • overdetermination
  • praxis
  • prices of production
  • primitive accumulation
  • proletariat
  • rate of exploitation
  • rate of surplus value
  • reification
  • relations of production
  • relative surplus value
  • realization problem
  • scientific socialism
  • simple commodity production
  • simple reproduction
  • Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Time (SNALT)
  • subject
  • superstructure
  • surplus value
  • transformation problem
  • use value
  • utopian socialism
  • value
  • variable capital
  • vulgar political economy