On Tue 24 May 1994 08:53:07 -0700, Barkley writes:
> 3) I think too much has been made of the "law of one price"
> on all sides of this debate. Neri's response is reasonable from
> the Sraffa side. On the GE side, Gil pointed in the direction of
> an out, simply defining a multi-priced commodity as more than one
> commodity, the method Walrasians use for "dynamizing" and "spatializing"
> their model as well (yes, I find this an inadequate approach). That
> this "multiplication of commodities" can go on without limit can be
> seen by the emergence of the "continuum of commodities" work by
> people such as Robert Aumann, Debreu, and Andreu Mas-Colell. Of course
> the "law" still holds for a point-defined commodity, but it is really
> not a big deal on either side of this debate.
I thought that I would note three points. First, this (long, involved,
and overly abstract) strand of the GE/Sraffa debate grew out of Gil's
insistence that there is no logic by which the uniform prices of the
Sraffian framework could be supported except the logic of Walrasian General
Equilibrium.
Second, the continuum of commodities renders transfinite and hence
infeasible the determination of a general equilibrium which was in the mid
1950's versions merely highly implausible. But there I go again, GE
bashing. STOP ME BEFORE I BASH AGAIN 8-)#
Third, even if Gil admits defeat on the whole "Sraffian system = GE
system minus a bunch of necessary stuff" thesis, the question of whether
the Sraffian system is too similar to GE models, in the sense of being too
far removed from capitalist economies as they actually function to be a
useful explanatory tool, is still out there lurking in the wings. In My
Humble Opinion its too soon to tell.
Virtually,
Bruce McFarling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (through June)
