tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post608874855303583785..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Applied SraffianismRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-29386468937824756352011-01-04T13:39:24.852-05:002011-01-04T13:39:24.852-05:00The work of Bellino etc. analyzing the dynamics of...The work of Bellino etc. analyzing the dynamics of gravitation is precisely the kind of work that is needed to get beyond the narrow post-Sraffianism that remains stuck on static, linear i/o models of the economy.<br /><br />Some Sraffians claim to uphold the Classical tradition in Political Economy. But to really walk in the shoes of Smith, Marx etc. requires a truly dynamic analysis of capitalism. 90% of the post-Sraffian work is static. I think this needs to change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-20799921259035332542011-01-03T12:25:38.930-05:002011-01-03T12:25:38.930-05:00Robert,
From Serrano´s work, was opened a link b...Robert, <br /><br />From Serrano´s work, was opened a link between Kalecki and Keynes to long period positions of classical theory, and therefore applied sraffian dynamics models with a separation of prices and quantities. <br /><br />Here the sraffian supermultiplier of Franklin Serrano, (in Bortis there is another version of supermultiplier, <br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/serranofranklin2/home/Serrano-1995_Sraffiansupermultiplier.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1<br /><br />more recently Olivera, M. "Effective Demand, Economic Growth and External Constraints: Rethinking Regional Integration in Latin America"<br />US: http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Demand-Economic-External-Constraints/dp/383838296X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282579009&sr=8-6 <br />):<br /><br />Gravitation of market-prices over normal-prices, represents the dynamics of prices within the core.<br />another recent paper of this topic is:<br />Bellino-Serrano: "Gravitation analysis:beyond cross-dual models and back to Adam Smith"<br /><br />ale.Alejandro Fioritohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00929891745158637259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-1769247195865038312010-12-31T11:44:57.035-05:002010-12-31T11:44:57.035-05:00Robert, check out Franklin Serrano´s work. It´s ma...Robert, check out Franklin Serrano´s work. It´s mainly "Sraffian"<br /><br />http://www.ie.ufrj.br/ecopol/franklin.php<br /><br />cheers,<br />GualraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-35209542311111521912010-12-31T11:11:51.363-05:002010-12-31T11:11:51.363-05:00First anonymous, please create a pseudonym in futu...First anonymous, please create a pseudonym in future comments.<br /><br />I think we all know that there's an increasing amount of literature arguing whether or not Sraffa's approach is consistent with models set in historical time. I think my finding the Sraffa critique of neoclassical economics convincing inclines me to want to see a constructive Sraffian approach, aside from an interpretation of the history of economics. I would like to accept that Sraffa's equations make sense without a formal specification of a dynamical system in which they are limit points. Ajit Sinha's position is interesting. I also wonder if one could talk about a discovery process, akin to Hayek's. I'd like to avoid being mystical, though.<br /><br />Part of the challenge is specifying the data for Sraffa's model such that the long period does not have an independent existence, over and above a succession of short runs. According to Sraffa, his data do not require any assumption on returns to scale. That implies, I guess, the level of gross outputs must be given. How can this be consistent with levels being those for a pre-existing long run position? Are capacities being operated at actual levels for these data, planned levels, or what?<br /><br />Gualra, thanks for the recommendation. I did think about citing Pivetti and Panico's separate contributions to a Garegnani festschrift. I have never had access to Pivetti's 1991 or Panico's 1988 books. So I don't what a full statement of their positions looks like. I gather, however, they rely on the open character of Sraffa's approach that Bruce mentions.<br /><br />I don't mind if you continue to argue about Davidson versus Garegnani or whatever here. But please keep in mind that a comment section can probably not do justice to any positions in the spectrum. Did the Trieste summer school discussions end up generating lots of bad feeling?Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-42434032251390445462010-12-30T14:48:57.064-05:002010-12-30T14:48:57.064-05:00"Sraffian" systems deals with long-perio..."Sraffian" systems deals with long-period positions of economic variables; those are influenced by strong and persistent forces. In fact there is a close resemblace with traditional neoclassical theory: Marshall, Wicksell and Walras share this idea of persistence. The main difference is the content of the theory (¿which are those forces affecting long-term outcomes?)<br /><br />GualraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-32296423737778635892010-12-30T13:14:59.643-05:002010-12-30T13:14:59.643-05:00Both neoclassical models and (narrow) Sraffian mod...Both neoclassical models and (narrow) Sraffian models are systems of simultaneous equations *completely lacking* any specification of out-of-equilibrium dynamic adjustment. On this vital axis they possess a strong family resemblance. And -- I hope you would agree -- this simply isn't good enough from the point of view of understanding economic systems.<br /><br />You claim that -- because Sraffa's formulation is under-determined, i.e. leaves the distribution of income undetermined -- it is "compatible with being set in historical time" in contrast to neoclassical models. But I do not see how these properties are connected. Any static model is in principle compatible with being set in historical time because the static model may be interpreted as the linearisation of the full dynamic system at an equilibrium point.<br /><br />Perhaps the contrast you are alluding to is that neoclassical general equilibrium assumes tatonnement? i.e. trade cannot take place out-of-equilibrium? Agreed, Sraffianism is not as off-the-wall deranged as that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-15041619184958381082010-12-30T01:17:21.475-05:002010-12-30T01:17:21.475-05:00You contradict yourself: first you say that the Sr...You contradict yourself: first you say that the Sraffian system has all the faults of the neoclassical system, and then you say that it is at best agnostic about change.<br /><br />I agree with the second: the fact that the Sraffian system is a genuinely static system means that it can be agnostic about change. It is not a model that demands that it be set in historical time, but it is a model that is compatible with being set in historical time. The neoclassical system, by contrast, is incompatible with being set in historical time.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-91039022078329373172010-12-29T14:29:09.275-05:002010-12-29T14:29:09.275-05:00I think the fact that Sraffa's system is "...I think the fact that Sraffa's system is "analytically open" is not of great interest or import. Yes, it's an under-determined simultaneous equation system with two degrees of freedom. You can close it by specifying an exogenous distribution of income and a numeraire. But this property pales into significance compared to the complete absence of the analysis of out-of-equilibrium dynamic adjustment of a capitalist economy. The Sraffian system has all the faults of the neoclassical system in this respect -- it is static, or, at best, agnostic about economic change. <br /><br />I think it's incorrect to claim that because Sraffa's system is under-determined it is therefore a "useful tool for cause and effect explanations". You might get comparative static "cause and effect" stories out of it, but, again, without explicit out-of-equilibrium dynamics such comparative statics exercises are without foundation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-57785442680239425202010-12-29T07:46:12.709-05:002010-12-29T07:46:12.709-05:00Robert, check out Pivetti´s and Panico´s work on t...Robert, check out Pivetti´s and Panico´s work on the influence of interest rate on the rate of profit and prices. It´s full of policy analysis (for instance, the subprime crisis)<br /><br />GualraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-48020089659270726732010-12-28T20:30:30.408-05:002010-12-28T20:30:30.408-05:00A key distinction between neoclassical and Sraffia...A key distinction between neoclassical and Sraffian approaches with respect to understanding economic reality is that the Sraffian system is analytically open, and so is compatible with empirically grounded models of human decision making, unlike neoclassical economics which is built on a falsified model of human decision making.<br /><br />Since capitalism cannot be encompassed in mathematical modeling alone, mathematical approaches that are analytically open offer the prospect of being a useful tool for cause and effect explanations of capitalism, where neoclassical economics can aspire to no better than emulation and simulation of capitalism.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-58033112364186260462010-12-28T13:03:26.333-05:002010-12-28T13:03:26.333-05:00A narrow post-Sraffian approach can hold its own a...A narrow post-Sraffian approach can hold its own against neoclassical economics. But the real standard of value is to what extent a narrow post-Sraffian approach can hold its own against economic reality. And here, I think it's fairly clear, that a narrow post-Sraffian approach is inherently static and deterministic, and not significantly different from neoclassical models.<br /><br />Isn't the best critique the formulation of an alternative theoretical framework that better explains economic reality? Do you really think linear algebra is the right tool to understand capitalism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com