Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?

["A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ajit.
Can you explain a little more about disproportionality? It could be argued that proportionality between the departments of production requires that they are in balance: that supply and demand are equal. If supply creates its own demand (Say's Law), then this means there cannot be disproportionality. I agree that general overproduction is distinct from this, however.
Andrew.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: ajit sinha [mailto:sinha_a99@xxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Sat 28/02/2004 06:28 
	To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?
	
	

	--- "A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
	> Jerry.
	> This is something that I am currrently grappling
	> with, so it is very useful for you to raise it. My
	> reading of the Grossmanite defence against the Say's
	> Law charge is that Grossman assumes that prices are
	> equivalent to values, as in Capital vs I and II, and
	> therefore supply is assumed equal to demand. Now the
	> same charge has been levelled against the Marxian
	> reproduction schema that Marx assumes that supply
	> and demand are in balance, and therefore Marx
	> assumes Say's Law to hold. The reply might be that
	> Marx considers the reproduction schema as a special
	> extreme in which balanced growth takes place; he
	> explores the unlikely conditions under which supply
	> and demand are in balance. By demonstrating how
	> diffficult it is to achieve this balance Marx in
	> fact falsifies Say's Law, showing that supply does
	> not automatically create demand. Does this seem a
	> sensible interpretation?
	_________________________
	I don't think Say's law denies disproportionality
	problem. What it denies is the possibility of a
	general glut or overproduction. Cheers, ajit sinha
	>
	> Grossmann also assumes that supply and demand are in
	> balance but then develops the reproduction
	> schemes with a rising organic composition of capital
	> to show that they break down. Now the point that
	> could be made here is that for Grossman the
	> breakdown is not due to the falsification of Say's
	> Law. Supply and demand are assumed to be in balance
	> throughout Grossman's simulation. But he introduces
	> an addditional reason - as if Marx's falsification
	> of Say's Law wasn't powerful enough - as to why
	> expanded reproduction is unlikely over an extended
	> period: namely, the law of the falling rate of
	> profit. Issues of where the money and demand comes
	> from for extended reproduction to take place are
	> relegated to the heretic backwaters of
	> underconsumptionism - all that matters is the SUPPLY
	> of surplus value which dries up under the falling
	> rate of profit.
	>
	> Any comments gratefully received, or relevant
	> references I should check out.
	>
	> Andrew.
	>
	>
	>       -----Original Message-----
	>       From: Gerald A. Levy [mailto:Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx]
	>
	>       Sent: Tue 24/02/2004 12:57
	>       To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	>       Cc:
	>       Subject: (OPE-L) Say's Law in Marxian Theories?
	>
	>
	>       John Rosenthal (1999) "Addressing the Dogma of
	> Growth" in
	>       Paul Zarembka ed. _Research in Political Economy_
	> 19, asserts
	>       that Grossman and "Grossmanian" theories (including
	> that of
	>       list member Anwar Shaikh) assume "Say's Law".
	> Rosenthal
	>       makes the claim that Grossman's theory _implicitly_
	> assumes
	>       "Say's Law"  even though he acknowledges that
	> Grossman
	>       _explicitly_  rejected Say's Law.
	>
	>       --  Do others agree that Grossman's theory
	> implicitly assumed
	>              Say's Law?
	>
	>       -- Do "Grossmanian theories" assume Say's Law?
	>
	>       -- Are there any Marxian theorists from a
	> non-"Grossmanian"
	>              tradition which assume Say's Law?
	>
	>       In solidarity, Jerry
	>
	>
	
	
	__________________________________
	Do you Yahoo!?
	Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
	http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools