tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post221420515033740194..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Arguing Against "Libertarianism"Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-77974960126866111712019-03-27T10:07:23.924-04:002019-03-27T10:07:23.924-04:00For some time I've waiting for Schefold retaki...For some time I've waiting for Schefold retaking the critique of intertemporal equilibrium on linear economies. Not in the line of the more abstract one he developed against Mandler (1) but the continuation of the numerical ones in both his 1997 book (2) and the Essay of 2000 (3) where he ends with a kind of regret about the exposition of the argument due to the limited space. <br /><br />I think that work on Paradox from Capital is going to emerge in the work from Yoshihara and Veneziani. And that they are going to some kind of synthesis from Sraffa and Roemer's work. In their last published work together (4) about the persistence of exploitation they talked about technical change as the way that capitalism continues to persist and how there could be a technical change that does not allow exploitation to continue. I have thought about your examples about firms hiring more people for a higher wage as a stream of thought. The old Controversy showing again in the form of a technical progress that doesn't allow exploitation to persist. In connexion with this they mention on the conclusion of that paper Bidard's Algoritmith as a way to obtain the same result. Technical change without exploitation. I seem to grasp connection with Marx's declining Rate of Profit but more specifically what I think is that they're going to the joint production world as a detour from the paradoxes of the simple production.<br /><br /><br />(1) Reswitching as a Cause of Instability of Intertemporal Equilibrium. Bertram Schefold, Metroeconomica, 2005.<br />(2) Normal Prices, Technical Change and Accumulation. Bertram Schefold, 1997.<br />(3) Paradoxes of capital and counterintuitive changes of distribution in an intertemporal equilibrium model; ch. 10, B. Schefold in Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa's Legacy in Economics, H. D. Kurz, 2000.<br />(4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188918304020Sturainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-22793639944852349192019-03-23T08:53:11.727-04:002019-03-23T08:53:11.727-04:00Thanks for comments. I guess I had once stumbled u...Thanks for comments. I guess I had once stumbled upon Miss' relationship with Dollfuss.<br /><br />I guess you can see where propertarians do not engage with Larry <a href="https://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search?q=Libertarian" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Yoshihara and Kwak seem to flatly disagree with Mandler on mathematical conclusions to be drawn from common assumptions. I don't feel like taking a side without more study. Maybe I can follow Y & K to present a numerical example.<br /><br />I mention Bidard's algorithm, as presented in his book, in my 1917 ROPE paper. I'd have to review more.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-22531704686268087332019-03-19T16:57:39.575-04:002019-03-19T16:57:39.575-04:00Buenas, I don't know if you have spotted the r...Buenas, I don't know if you have spotted the renewed paper by Yoshihara and Kwak on Sraffian Indeterminacy. It's interesting how they have changed their conclusions on the (in)determinacy of the steady-state. In the previous version they "established" determinacy for the steady-state and indeterminacy for the growing case. Now they claim indeterminacy also for the steady case. It seems to me that they have followed a hint from Garegnani in his debate against Mandler on the overdetermination via Walras' Law that makes it posible to reduce one equation. <br /><br />For me it looks like the main point of the political debate spins around the argument about "wages up or going during a recesion due to unconventional effects like reswitching, recurrence, etc" against "unconventional effects are possible but what matters is that we can prove under the same axioms of the orthodox that distribution is indeterminate so it has to be established institutionaly outside of the market (integrating the first critique by the way). <br /><br />The extension of this road taken by yoshihara claims to have achieved the establishment of indeterminacy also for technical change. This time the lead comes from Schefold's conflict whith Mandler on intertemporal linear economies with demachination or with inmigration-reswitching. What yoshihara announce is indetermination with technical change even when the functions are doble differentiable. I would like to see how steedman recurrence can be inserted on these models and if regularity can also expell these couriosums out. <br /><br />The extension of the quest for indeterminacy is postulated in joint production models but that complex world maybe needs a lot of axioms and restrictions to be obtained.<br /><br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331385930_Sraffian_Indeterminacy_in_General_Equilibrium_Revisited<br /><br />PS: I would like to know if you have thought about Bidard's Algorithmic theory of the choice of technique paper. In particular about the possibily of a path of technical choices that are cost-saving but not labour-saving.<br />Sturainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-45976086351333358972019-03-15T20:21:21.843-04:002019-03-15T20:21:21.843-04:00I've been thinking about this topic a long tim...I've been thinking about this topic a long time (and you've talked about some of my own arguments) and I realize that I honestly don't really understand what propertarians are actually arguing <i>for</i>. You want freedom? Good for you. Would you like a side Mom and apple pie to go with that? In what sense is any ordinary liberal democratic republic a hellish tyranny? <br /><br />You hate the government? Oh my god, well why didn't you say so? You know there's a support group for that. It's called <i>everybody</i>, and we meet at the bar. (Apologies to <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111945/quotes/?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu" rel="nofollow">Drew Carey</a>)<br /><br />What freedoms are you <i>missing</i> that you really want? In most liberal democratic republics, you already may more-or-less go where you please, dress as you please, buy or not buy what you please, work as you please, say, watch, and listen to what you please. Even porn!<br /><br />What more do you want? The freedom to not pay taxes? Be a racist? Own slaves? <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/trump-midterms-shoot-fifth-avenue.html" rel="nofollow">Shoot someone on 5th Ave. in broad daylight</a>? <a href="http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html" rel="nofollow">Rape and murder children</a>? If think you're strong enough to <i>take</i> these freedoms, I guess you and your friends can try, and my friends and I can try to stop you. We'll see who lives and who dies. But why is it in <i>my</i> interest to just <i>give</i> you these sorts of freedoms?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-17218150934557373722019-03-15T11:48:25.208-04:002019-03-15T11:48:25.208-04:00"Von Mises praising Mussolini"
He did m..."Von Mises praising Mussolini"<br /><br />He did more than that, he actually <i>advised</i> the fascists in Austria:<br /><br /><b>Propertarianism and Fascism</b><br />http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/propertarianism-fascism<br /><br />As he blamed the Great Depression of unions and welfare, presumably his advice was on how best the fascist regime could crush labour... strange form of "anti-statism," arguing the state breaking workers' heads is liberty but providing medical help to the victims is tyranny...<br /><br />"Among scholars, those building on Marx could with more right wear Smith ties than Chicago-school economists."<br /><br />Very true -- Murray Rothbard hated Smith (his followers seem to be following that). Those non-Rothbardites who have looked at his attacks note he misunderstands Smith, when not systematically misrepresenting his ideas. Which is, as far as I can see, pretty much what Rothbard did to everyone he disagreed with...<br /><br />Incidentally, Proudhon very much viewed himself as working in Smith's tradition -- as can be seen from the final chapter of his <i>System of Economic Contradictions</i>:<br /><br /><b>Chapter XIV: Summary and Conclusion</b><br />http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/systemchapterXIV.html<br /><br />The above has never been translated in full below.<br /><br />Iain<br />An Anarchist FAQ<br />http://www.anarchistfaq.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com