[OPE-L:5255] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one commodity models and illustrations

[Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I rather liked Meghnad Desai's analysis of simple reproduction in the
first part of his Marxian Economics Book (as I now remember it). I
read his interpretation as follows: even assuming away the
disturbances from the continuous revolution in values in terms of its
effect on stocks of fixed capital, there are so still so many points
of possible disturbance on the both the value and the technical side
in simple and expanded reproduction that it is inconceivable that
capitalist development could ever take the form of equilibrium growth.

This of course is also the thrust of Grossman's interpretation of the
schema in his dynamics book.  There was some debate between Andrew K
and Paul Z about whether the schema were meant to prove the
possibility of expanded reproduction without a permanent consumption
deficit. It seems to me that Marx himself was trying to demonstrate
in his schema is that capitalist development at any point cannot
reasonably be expected to take place in equilibrium.

Yours, Rakesh