For what it's worth, one well-known author (especially among pen-pals) writes that "Paul Samuelson (1989) gave one of the better readings of [Ricardo's] chapter [on machinery]." (See M. Perelman, THE INVENTION OF CAPITALISM, p. 190.)
In any event, I posted the reference to Samuelson because I fine it s amazing that he endorsed Ricardo (within the context of a specific model). But I'm no expert on Ricardo, so I can't endorse Samuelson's interpretation. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Mathematical Vindication of Ricardo on Machinery >>> >>> by Samuelson, Paul A >>> >>> Abstract >>> Ricardo is shown to be right that machinery can hurt wages and reduce >>> output. A dramatic robot example reveals Knut Wicksell's error in >>> believing that Pareto optimality calls for no drop in total output >>> from a viable invention. Under Ricardo's axiom that labor supply >>> adjusts to keep wages at the subsistence level, he can correctly >>> deduce on a market-clearing basis a rise in his net product (rent plus >>> interest), while the greater drop in population and total wages >>> results in a reduction in his gross product (rent plus interest plus >>> wages). Copyright 1988 by University of Chicago Press. > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote: >> What pure and TIMELESS neoclassical nonsense! The presumed decline in >> population because wages fall below "subsistence" (Ricardo includes >> the cost of raising children in subsistence) is portrayed as >> INSTANTANEOUS (if the process was assumed to be taking place in time, >> the mechanism would take a GENERATION to be effective)! -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
