FW: Re: Veneziani on Roemer, Marx, and Skillman
[I sent this over the weekend, but MS Outlook wasn't cooperating. I hope that people don't receive multiple copies. If they do, please accept my apologies ahead of time.] Gil writes:>... I'm somewhat astonished that Jim took it upon himself to contact Roberto Veneziani concerning my comments on the latter's paper (noting that Jim has not been equally zealous in contacting Roemer to get his assessment of the much more extensive and negative critical comments that have been made here about his work, e.g.)< To set the record straight, I did _not_ "contact Roberto Veneziani concerning my [Gil's] comments on the latter's paper." Instead, what I did was to send Roberto a copy of summary that I sent to pen-l of his "exploitation and time" article (not of my comments on Gil's opinions) -- in order to see if I was presenting his views correctly. In a conversasion with me, he volunteered the comments that I forwarded to the list (and I did the forwarding only with his permission). Gary and I contacted Roemer when we wrote our original articles on his work and some of his comments were reflected in the ECONOMICS & PHILOSOPHY article. He has since moved on to completely different issues (normative matters surrounding egalitarianism) and has seemingly given up on the whole project of trying to translate Marxian political economy into neoclassical lingo. (In practice, at least, he seems to agree with Gary's and my conclusion about the validity of his so-called "analytical Marxist" work. I am not interested in his current work, which may great for all I know.) I thus saw no reason to contact him concerning recent discussions, especially since I don't know him beyond a couple of meetings of the editorial board of the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS back in the 1970s and I doubt that he knows me at all. (On the other hand, I previously had a pleasant e-conversation with Roberto.) zealous? zealotry in the name of clear thinking is no vice. (Unlike some, I don't see clear thinking as solely consisting of math and deductive logic. I remember when I was a college chemistry major that one of the sins of that trade is false precision. I still agree with that.) Jim Devine
RE: Re: Veneziani on Roemer, Marx, and Skillman
Gil writes:>... I'm somewhat astonished that Jim took it upon himself to contact Roberto Veneziani concerning my comments on the latter's paper (noting that Jim has not been equally zealous in contacting Roemer to get his assessment of the much more extensive and negative critical comments that have been made here about his work, e.g.)< To set the record straight, I did _not_ "contact Roberto Veneziani concerning my [Gil's] comments on the latter's paper." Instead, what I did was to send Roberto a copy of summary that I sent to pen-l of his "exploitation and time" article (not of my comments on Gil's opinions) -- in order to see if I was presenting his views correctly. He then volunteered the comments that I forwarded to the list (and I did the forwarding only with his permission). Gary and I contacted Roemer when we wrote our original articles on his work and some of his comments were reflected in the ECONOMICS & PHILOSOPHY article. He has since moved on to completely different issues (normative matters surrounding egalitarianism) and has seemingly given up on the whole project of trying to translate Marxian political economy into neoclassical lingo. I thus saw no reason to contact him, especially since I don't know him beyond a couple of meetings of the editorial board of the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS back in the 1970s and I doubt that he knows me at all. (On the other hand, I previously had a pleasant e-conversation with Roberto.) zealous? zealotry in the name of clear thinking is no vice. Jim Devine
Re: Veneziani on Roemer, Marx, and Skillman
Lest it be forgotten, this now extensive and multi-named thread began with my simple suggestion, in response to a P.S. in a post by Sabri, that Roemer's work raised issues that were of relevance to Marx's analysis in Volume I of Capital. This modest assessment was not intended as a referendum on "Marx's general method and theoretical framework," nor as a defense of Roemer's general analytical method, despite Jim Devine's evident interest in enlarging the discussion to embrace these much larger issues. Nor were these larger questions engaged by my subsequent suggestion, in a response to Andrew K, that Veneziani's work, whatever its considerable merits, did not serve to "demolish" Roemer's contribution. Given these rather humble claims, I'm somewhat astonished that Jim took it upon himself to contact Roberto Veneziani concerning my comments on the latter's paper (noting that Jim has not been equally zealous in contacting Roemer to get his assessment of the much more extensive and negative critical comments that have been made here about his work, e.g.). It suggests to me that Jim might be taking this discussion way too seriously. That said, though, I think Jim did a real service to PEN-L in enlisting Veneziani. I indicated my opinion of the quality of his theoretical work in an earlier post. Although I think it's unlikely to engage the interest of most listmembers, I look forward to discussing the set of issues raised by Roberto's paper. Since, as he notes in his recent post, his initial response (conveyed by Jim below) were made before he was aware of my full comments, I'll not address the remarks below, but instead respond directly to his separate posting. Gil >Concerning the thread with a similar name to the title of this message, >Roberto Veneziani sends me the following comments & corrections (which I've >renumbered): > >[begin quote] >1) I agree that price = value is only fairness in exchange and that this is >Roemer's and not Marx's view. I have tried to clarify this in the new >version. All references to value pricing as fair pricing have been >eliminated. > >2) Your summary of the main conclusions of the paper is perfect, except on >one issue, namely that "Roemer's story of exploitation self-destructs ... >due to accumulation, including worker's accumulation" (your message). I >agree that in accumulation models or in a subsistence economy with non-zero >savings Roemer's theory breaks down immediately. (Roemer himself >acknowledged the knife-edge properties of his accumulation models.) You have >forcefully shown this in your paper with Prof. Dymski, and I did not want to >just provide "mathematical clothes" to your convincing logical and economic >argument. My point is that even in the most favourable case to Roemer's >theory, i.e. in an interior Reproducible Solution with NO SAVINGS and NO >ACCUMULATION [in short, in a "solution with no savings"] the theory does not >work. I think this result is rather strong because it falsifies Roemer's >claim (in his reply to your E&P critique) that his models prove that DOPA >[the differential ownership of productive assets, i.e., wealth inequality] >is logically primary and exploitation and classes emerge prior to >accumulation, etc. And it falsifies the claim at what he considers to be the >relevant level of abstraction. > >3) Given that my results obtain only thanks to the POSSIBILITY of savings, >and with no actual savings by either capitalists or workers, they do not >undermine Marx's vol.I/ch.25 argument. These results only undermine >"microfounded" - analytical marxist - models, by showing that they are >unable to model Marxian exploitation as a persistent phenomenon, and raise >doubts about Roemer's narrow definition of exploitation and classes. >Actually, as shown in an unpublished paper by Prof. Skillman, if the >Walrasian framework is retained, the only way to have persistent >"exploitation" is to assume that agents have different time preferences, >i.e. the typical result of neoclassical models, where differences in wealth >are due to differences in preferences. >[end quote] > >[My comment:] if persistent "exploitation" is based on different classes >having different time preferences, we have returned to the theory that Marx >was attacking in his discussion of "primitive accumulation" and other >matters, i.e., that the rich are rich because they are forward-thinking, >while the poor are poor because they are short-sighted. > >Roberto says that he may be joining pen-l soon. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine >"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman. >
Veneziani on Roemer, Marx, and Skillman
Concerning the thread with a similar name to the title of this message, Roberto Veneziani sends me the following comments & corrections (which I've renumbered): [begin quote] 1) I agree that price = value is only fairness in exchange and that this is Roemer's and not Marx's view. I have tried to clarify this in the new version. All references to value pricing as fair pricing have been eliminated. 2) Your summary of the main conclusions of the paper is perfect, except on one issue, namely that "Roemer's story of exploitation self-destructs ... due to accumulation, including worker's accumulation" (your message). I agree that in accumulation models or in a subsistence economy with non-zero savings Roemer's theory breaks down immediately. (Roemer himself acknowledged the knife-edge properties of his accumulation models.) You have forcefully shown this in your paper with Prof. Dymski, and I did not want to just provide "mathematical clothes" to your convincing logical and economic argument. My point is that even in the most favourable case to Roemer's theory, i.e. in an interior Reproducible Solution with NO SAVINGS and NO ACCUMULATION [in short, in a "solution with no savings"] the theory does not work. I think this result is rather strong because it falsifies Roemer's claim (in his reply to your E&P critique) that his models prove that DOPA [the differential ownership of productive assets, i.e., wealth inequality] is logically primary and exploitation and classes emerge prior to accumulation, etc. And it falsifies the claim at what he considers to be the relevant level of abstraction. 3) Given that my results obtain only thanks to the POSSIBILITY of savings, and with no actual savings by either capitalists or workers, they do not undermine Marx's vol.I/ch.25 argument. These results only undermine "microfounded" - analytical marxist - models, by showing that they are unable to model Marxian exploitation as a persistent phenomenon, and raise doubts about Roemer's narrow definition of exploitation and classes. Actually, as shown in an unpublished paper by Prof. Skillman, if the Walrasian framework is retained, the only way to have persistent "exploitation" is to assume that agents have different time preferences, i.e. the typical result of neoclassical models, where differences in wealth are due to differences in preferences. [end quote] [My comment:] if persistent "exploitation" is based on different classes having different time preferences, we have returned to the theory that Marx was attacking in his discussion of "primitive accumulation" and other matters, i.e., that the rich are rich because they are forward-thinking, while the poor are poor because they are short-sighted. Roberto says that he may be joining pen-l soon. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman.
