Piero Sraffa

[Nusocialist]

Can anyone tell me exactly what Sraffa added to socialist economic theory,I keep hearing about him but I'm not really sure.

[ComradeRed]

He basically... Criticized bourgeois economic theory
Pointed out that within the conditions assumed by bourgeois economists that bourgeois economics breaks down
pointed out that there is no transformation problem and proved it mathematically
applied linear algebra to economics

Of course his model is linear and there are problems with his treatment of time. There is hope that it can be "nonlinearised" and still be consistent.

Some of his disciples applied his techniques against Marxist economics (e.g. Ian Steedman), though they haven't understood Marxist economics in the first place giving a poor critique.

He basically created a crucible to destroy bourgeois economics, that's it in the plain English.

[gilhyle]

Not a marxist - a follower of Ricardo.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:03 pm
Not a marxist - a follower of Ricardo.
So? I'm not a Marxist either, nor was Bakunin etc that doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist or did great work for socialist thinking.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 16, 2007 02:59 am--> (Nusocialist @ January 16, 2007 02:59 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 07:03 pm
Not a marxist - a follower of Ricardo.
So? I'm not a Marxist either, nor was Bakunin etc that doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist or did great work for socialist thinking. [/b]
I'm sure you are correct, but since 'Socialist Thinking' includes many an advocate of capitalism in thin disguise, that hardly recommends him and certainly doesn't make his non-marxism any less of a fact.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:03 pm
a follower of Ricardo.
Like that guy Karl Marx.

Luís Henrique

[Nusocialist]

He basically created a crucible to destroy bourgeois economics, that's it in the plain English.
So he's pretty important,I wonder why he is not that well known.
Kind of like Thorstein Veblen.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:50 am

He basically created a crucible to destroy bourgeois economics, that's it in the plain English.
So he's pretty important,I wonder why he is not that well known.
Because he basically destroyed bourgeois economics...no vulgar economist wants to say "...yes, and now everything I just taught you is internally inconsistent and completely wrong."

Economists tend to simply ignore criticisms if they're really good. Otherwise they strawman them.

As I've said elsewhere, economists are failures as scientists...and humans.

[gilhyle]

Wouldnt get your hopes up - Sraffa adds up, problem is its toooo simple, like that guy Ricardo.....but not like that guy Karl Marx.:)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:49 am
Wouldnt get your hopes up - Sraffa adds up, problem is its toooo simple, like that guy Ricardo.....but not like that guy Karl Marx.:)
Yes, that's why everyone here has stated very clearly several times now that Piero Sraffa is the source of all truth and reality. Good job :rolleyes:

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:49 pm
Wouldnt get your hopes up - Sraffa adds up, problem is its toooo simple, like that guy Ricardo.....but not like that guy Karl Marx.:)
Huh? What do you mean about adding up?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:35 pm
He
applied linear algebra to economics

He misnunderstood, thinking the heart of political economy coudl be restated in a merely analytical, 'modelable' manner

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by gilhyle+January 18, 2007 04:09 pm--> (gilhyle @ January 18, 2007 04:09 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:35 pm
He
applied linear algebra to economics

He misnunderstood, thinking the heart of political economy coudl be restated in a merely analytical, 'modelable' manner [/b]
...because putting it in a metaphysical form is oh so much better.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CR:


Economists tend to simply ignore criticisms if they're really good. Otherwise they strawman them.

As you will no doubt also know, this is just like DM-fans! :D

[Nusocialist]

I know little about neoclassical economics so I don't know exactly what the implications of reswitching are.
I've been talking to a few cappies who say it is either not too important or doesn't exist I'm pretty sure they are wrong,can anyone explain it?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 am
I know little about neoclassical economics so I don't know exactly what the implications of reswitching are.
I've been talking to a few cappies who say it is either not too important or doesn't exist I'm pretty sure they are wrong,can anyone explain it?
Well, here (http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa2.html) is a fairly mathematical introduction to it.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 19, 2007 08:33 pm--> (ComradeRed @ January 19, 2007 08:33 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 am
I know little about neoclassical economics so I don't know exactly what the implications of reswitching are.
I've been talking to a few cappies who say it is either not too important or doesn't exist I'm pretty sure they are wrong,can anyone explain it?
Well, here (http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa2.html) is a fairly mathematical introduction to it. [/b]
Is it safe to say reswitching is not something small or unimportant?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 19, 2007 04:21 pm--> (Nusocialist @ January 19, 2007 04:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:33 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 am
I know little about neoclassical economics so I don't know exactly what the implications of reswitching are.
I've been talking to a few cappies who say it is either not too important or doesn't exist I'm pretty sure they are wrong,can anyone explain it?
Well, here (http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa2.html) is a fairly mathematical introduction to it.
Is it safe to say reswitching is not something small or unimportant? [/b]
Yeah, kind of like the heart...some useless thing that any human can easily get rid of. <_<

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 20, 2007 12:26 am--> (ComradeRed @ January 20, 2007 12:26 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:21 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:33 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 am
I know little about neoclassical economics so I don&#39;t know exactly what the implications of reswitching are.
I&#39;ve been talking to a few cappies who say it is either not too important or doesn&#39;t exist I&#39;m pretty sure they are wrong,can anyone explain it?
Well, here (http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa2.html) is a fairly mathematical introduction to it.
Is it safe to say reswitching is not something small or unimportant?
Yeah, kind of like the heart...some useless thing that any human can easily get rid of. <_< [/b]
There general argument now is it rarely happens in the real world therefore,somehow,the theory is saved.
To me that just makes no sense,not least because the theory isn&#39;t a good description of real life anyway.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:45 pm
There general argument now is it rarely happens in the real world therefore,somehow,the theory is saved.
To me that just makes no sense,not least because the theory isn&#39;t a good description of real life anyway.
That&#39;s no argument.

In science, the exception makes the rule. When the current paradigm cannot explain some phenomena, it is tossed out for a superior paradigm.

Neoclassical economics cannot explain this and, regardless of how "rare" an occurrence this is, must be tossed out.

That&#39;s how science works.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 20, 2007 01:26 am--> (ComradeRed &#064; January 20, 2007 01:26 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:45 pm
There general argument now is it rarely happens in the real world therefore,somehow,the theory is saved.
To me that just makes no sense,not least because the theory isn&#39;t a good description of real life anyway.
That&#39;s no argument.

In science, the exception makes the rule. When the current paradigm cannot explain some phenomena, it is tossed out for a superior paradigm.

Neoclassical economics cannot explain this and, regardless of how "rare" an occurrence this is, must be tossed out.

That&#39;s how science works. [/b]
But as I understand it using just make believe theoretical models that conform to the theory,then reswitching happens in most cases.It is an exercise in pure logic.

Their argument that it doesn&#39;t happen in the real world,has no relevance to the theory and just shows how out of tune with reality it is,am I right?

[JimFar]

Sraffa, as has been noted here before, was a friend of both Antonio Gramsci and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein acknowledged Sraffa&#39;s impact on his own later philosophical thought in the forward to his Philosophical Investigations. Sraffa&#39;s friendships with both Wittgestein and Gramsci are discussed here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=29&url=http%3A%2F%2Fricardo.ecn.wfu.edu%2F~cottrell%2 Fope%2Farchive%2F0405%2Fatt-0206%2F01-A_Comment_on_Sen.doc&ei=2H6xRe3zH6SYgwTUhN29CQ&usg=__bRdGj-S_IbIbFym9rCh6DUReWek=&sig2=KjBMBNpmNRxhuNZl0mZy_Q).

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 pm
But as I understand it using just make believe theoretical models that conform to the theory,then reswitching happens in most cases.It is an exercise in pure logic.
No, that&#39;s not exactly true.

The bourgeois economists tend to give the knee-jerking response "Yes, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

All the Neo-Ricardians do is prove that, under the conditions assumed by the Neoclassical economists, Neoclassical economics breaks down. This is demonstrated mathematically, and is a powerful crucible against Neoclassical economics.

So it could be argued that it is an exercise in "pure logic"...demonstrating a paradigm is internally inconsistent is always an "exercise in pure logic".

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 20, 2007 02:39 am--> (ComradeRed &#064; January 20, 2007 02:39 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 pm
But as I understand it using just make believe theoretical models that conform to the theory,then reswitching happens in most cases.It is an exercise in pure logic.
No, that&#39;s not exactly true.

The bourgeois economists tend to give the knee-jerking response "Yes, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

All the Neo-Ricardians do is prove that, under the conditions assumed by the Neoclassical economists, Neoclassical economics breaks down. This is demonstrated mathematically, and is a powerful crucible against Neoclassical economics.

So it could be argued that it is an exercise in "pure logic"...demonstrating a paradigm is internally inconsistent is always an "exercise in pure logic". [/b]
I mean in the multi-commodity models of the marginal productivity theory of distribution then reswitching the rule and not an exception am I right?
I read E.K Hunt&#39;s histroy of economic thought and in his two commodity model of the 6 possibilities reswitching occured in 5 cases.

I just don&#39;t know much enough about the marginal theory of productivity to quite know what he was talking about.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 19, 2007 10:12 pm--> (Nusocialist @ January 19, 2007 10:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:39 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 pm
But as I understand it using just make believe theoretical models that conform to the theory,then reswitching happens in most cases.It is an exercise in pure logic.
No, that&#39;s not exactly true.

The bourgeois economists tend to give the knee-jerking response "Yes, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

All the Neo-Ricardians do is prove that, under the conditions assumed by the Neoclassical economists, Neoclassical economics breaks down. This is demonstrated mathematically, and is a powerful crucible against Neoclassical economics.

So it could be argued that it is an exercise in "pure logic"...demonstrating a paradigm is internally inconsistent is always an "exercise in pure logic".
I mean in the multi-commodity models of the marginal productivity theory of distribution then reswitching the rule and not an exception am I right?
I read E.K Hunt&#39;s histroy of economic thought and in his two commodity model of the 6 possibilities reswitching occured in 5 cases.

I just don&#39;t know much enough about the marginal theory of productivity to quite know what he was talking about. [/b]
Read Steve Keen&#39;s Debunking Economics...it&#39;s a significantly better explanation of Sraffian Economics.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+January 20, 2007 06:30 am--> (ComradeRed &#064; January 20, 2007 06:30 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:12 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:39 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 pm
But as I understand it using just make believe theoretical models that conform to the theory,then reswitching happens in most cases.It is an exercise in pure logic.
No, that&#39;s not exactly true.

The bourgeois economists tend to give the knee-jerking response "Yes, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

All the Neo-Ricardians do is prove that, under the conditions assumed by the Neoclassical economists, Neoclassical economics breaks down. This is demonstrated mathematically, and is a powerful crucible against Neoclassical economics.

So it could be argued that it is an exercise in "pure logic"...demonstrating a paradigm is internally inconsistent is always an "exercise in pure logic".
I mean in the multi-commodity models of the marginal productivity theory of distribution then reswitching the rule and not an exception am I right?
I read E.K Hunt&#39;s histroy of economic thought and in his two commodity model of the 6 possibilities reswitching occured in 5 cases.

I just don&#39;t know much enough about the marginal theory of productivity to quite know what he was talking about.
Read Steve Keen&#39;s Debunking Economics...it&#39;s a significantly better explanation of Sraffian Economics. [/b]
I&#39;ve ordered it,but they keep delaying it,they were supposed to ship in on wednesday.
Just shows you can&#39;t trust cappies.

I was little put off by his site though where he said there was no ironclad argument against capitalism.

[Dewolfemann]

Steve Keen&#39;s book is probably the best one for understanding Sraffa. Another good source for indepth info is http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm