Okishio's theorem shouldn't be called a theorem unless it's mathematically provable.
I take LTFPR (long term fall in profit rate) to be based on an economy that doesn't have any scientific or technical progress. Scientific and technical progress cause productivity to increase and as a result the value of existing capital to decrease (technological depreciation). While new technology is being implemented, the profit rate should be higher. -- Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Devine" <[email protected]> To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:06:32 PM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] R.P Wolff on Ricardo on Machinery Hinrich Kuhls wrote: > Jim was polite enough to omit the passage of Wolff's mini-tutorial > where Wolff shows that he misinterpreted Marx ... I omitted a lot of what Wolff said that I thought was bogus. This includes his ringing endorsement of Morishima Mathematical Marxism -- and his somewhat dogmatic mini-rant on the alleged "Marxist orthodoxy" (consisting of "true believers" who see all who differ from them as "Apologists for Capitalism"). While I don't think that the idea of a relentless tendency for the rate of profit to fall makes sense, I reject Wolff's citation of Okishio's famous theorem. Okishio assumes that real wages stay constant, which is grossly unrealistic. Long ago, John Roemer (one of Wolff's chosen few, at least for awhile) showed that if real wages rise with labor productivity, Okishio's theorem (that profitable technical progress raises profit rates) may or may not be true. -- 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
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
