tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post8399355827152162697..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Against Supply And DemandRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-16039023151436968602008-03-20T11:43:00.000-04:002008-03-20T11:43:00.000-04:00Oh, I understand what you mean now, (I think!). Th...Oh, I understand what you mean now, (I think!). Thanks!<BR/><BR/>The emphasis I was missing was on "natural". Oh, well, back to square 1.<BR/><BR/>Btw, regarding Samuelson, beyond the Leg paper, there's his 59 paper referenced there. Your comments on both of them would be most interesting! (I see there are quite a few replies to the 59 paper, I forget its name.)Gabriel Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18020403326536585795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-15090407744190502812008-03-20T05:50:00.000-04:002008-03-20T05:50:00.000-04:00In the classical theory of value, "supply" alone d...In the classical theory of value, "supply" alone does not determine prices. Natural prices are determined for a level of effectual demand. (See the Adam Smith quote in the original post.)<BR/><BR/>One might claim that for "neoclassical models" to be relevant "to the analysis of contemporary economies", they must exclude Sraffa effects. "Sraffa effects" is a generic term to include reswitching, reverse capital deepening, price Wicksell effects that go in a direction counter to outdated neoclassical intuition, etc. I took Gabriel to be saying I doubt the restrictions or assumptions needed to rule out Sraffa effects. But I do not think so, since no such assumptions have been stated.<BR/><BR/>I am away from my library and will not comment on Samuelson here.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-89564067029943201932008-03-19T14:07:00.000-04:002008-03-19T14:07:00.000-04:00My comment was strictly related to the conditions ...My comment was strictly related to the conditions under which supply alone determined prices. (E.g. the non-substitution theorem.)<BR/><BR/>This is precisely why I was curious about your views on Samuelson's article, which discusses head-on these particular cases of cost-determined price, if that's the right thing to call it.<BR/><BR/>The labor theory of value need not enter the discussion.<BR/><BR/>I have no interest in "Sraffa effects" at this point, unless these are causing the result in question.Gabriel Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18020403326536585795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-65773322597928161192008-03-18T06:38:00.000-04:002008-03-18T06:38:00.000-04:00The classical theory of value makes no assumptions...The classical theory of value makes no assumptions on returns to scale. Nobody can state assumptions or restrictions on tastes, technology, or endowments - the data of multigood neoclassical models - that rule out Sraffa effects.<BR/><BR/>I don't think what Gabriel says I think.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-76173529377505432652008-03-14T13:11:00.000-04:002008-03-14T13:11:00.000-04:00Robert,Fair enough, but I think we now better know...Robert,<BR/><BR/>Fair enough, but I think we now better know under which conditions relative prices are determined by constant returns and finite quantities supplied under competition alone. (I.e. what price vectors are consistent with no (excess) profit.) -- <BR/><BR/>Some people do happen to think that the restrictions required for these results make them irrelevant to the analysis of contemporary economies. You think the same of neoclassical models. How can we settle this?<BR/><BR/>Btw, what do you think of Samuelson's <I>Sraffa's Other Leg</I> which deals largely with the subject of this post?Gabriel Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18020403326536585795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-53992397188182089742008-03-14T02:09:00.000-04:002008-03-14T02:09:00.000-04:00Based on secondary literature, I doubt it. Just pr...Based on secondary literature, I doubt it. Just prices and natural prices are distinct concepts.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-58521017353419870712008-03-13T12:33:00.000-04:002008-03-13T12:33:00.000-04:00"The distinction between market and natural prices..."The distinction between market and natural prices apparently goes back to William Petty"<BR/><BR/>If you include the interest rate in prices then I'm sure this goes back to at least St. Thomas Aquinas.YouNotSneaky!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06378267534638281151noreply@blogger.com