Keynes,Ricardo and the classical theory of interest

Keynes made harsh and repeated attacks on the work of Ricardo, blaming him particulary for what Keynes called the ‘classical theory’ of interest. Garegnani and others argue that Keynes' criticisms of the classical theory of interest apply to later neoclassical writers, but not to Ricardo. This paper re-examines Keynes' criticisms. It argues that Keynes attacked Ricardoapos;s theory of interest despite his awareness that Ricardo did not hold the ‘classical theory’. Moreover, Keynes not only expressed sympathy for Ricardo's understanding of interest, but his criticisms which do apply to Ricardo do not address Ricardo's theory of interest.     

Marx,Sraffa, and Surplus: Observations Prompted by Garegnani (2018)

ABSTRACT

In a posthumously published article, Pierangelo Garegnani (2018. ‘On the Labour Theory of Value in Marx and in the Marxist Tradition.’) depicts Marx’s project in Capital as that of ‘developing systematically the theory of Ricardo and [the] implications of social conflict’ implied by Ricardo’s ‘surplus approach to value and distribution’. This paper argues to the contrary that Marx’s theory of surplus value and exploitation differs from (neo-)Ricardian surplus theory in fundamental ways, and modifies Garegnani’s simple Sraffian model to illustrate the distinctive implications of Marx’s theory.     

Marx on Ricardo: an explanation of some important misunderstandings

Ricardo's theory of value and distribution is reconstructed by proceeding along the lines of Marx's critique of Ricardo. It is thus an anti-critique of Marx's reading of Ricardo. The chapter ‘On Value’ in Ricardo's Principles is shown to be a consistent and rigorous treatment of the determinants of prices of production. According to Ricardo labor-values merely serve to approximate more elaborate standards of value. Marx's criticism is shown to rest crucially on his own misinterpretation of Ricardo's definitions and presupposes his own – faulty – theory of surplus value. Therefore Ricardo's theory can – contrary to Marx's theory of surplus value – still be regarded as a fruitful complement to Sraffa's model.     

Reading Sraffa's Indices – a note *

Piero Sraffa took thirteen years to publish the General Indexto The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo.The Index is compared to others and is shown to be exceptional in that it leads the way to specific interpretations of Ricardo's life and theory. The choice of entries referring to theory is based on Ricardo's own concepts and carefully avoids neoricardian, Marxian and neoclassical terms. Examples discussed concern ‘comparative advantage’ and ‘value’ The entries referring to Ricardo's life are proof of Sraffa's broad historical interests and focus on certain characteristics of Ricardo.     

The age of the universal consumer: a reconsideration of Ricardo's politics *

This paper reconsiders Ricardo's political thought, its relationship with his political economy and, more generally, Ricardo's connection with the ‘philosophical radicalism’ of Bentham and James Mill. It is arguedinter alia, that Ricardo's politics were utilitarian and individualistic; that he developed a notion of a shared, homogeneous interest; that he believed that individuals should know their ‘real’ interests as a condition for their suffrage; and that he subscribed to a doctrine of virtual representation. It is also argued that Ricardo was considerably less ‘radical’ in his political views than some previous commentators have recognized.     

Marx and Ricardo on machinery: a critical note

This article critically discusses the important and relevant—not to mention controversial— views of Ricardo and Marx on the impact of machinery on labor productivity, the organization of production and the wages and employment prospects of the working class during the capitalism of their day. First, the article turns to Ricardo’s assessment of the introduction of machinery and its likely effects on the laborer and the rate of profit and accumulation—one which went through a substantial revision (and reversal) between the first and third editions of his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Then, we discuss Marx’s own critical analysis of the historical development of machinery and its impact on the labor process, the so-called “compensation principle,” and how the rising organic composition of capital ostensibly generates a “redundant or surplus-population” during the course of capitalist development. We highlight Marx’s intellectual debt to Ricardo, John Barton (and George Ramsay) insofar as his theory of technological unemployment is concerned. Lastly, the article summarizes the views of Ricardo and Marx and offers some concluding remarks.     

Historicising Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory,challenging the normative foundations of liberal International Political Economy

David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage is now two centuries old, but it remains at the heart of economists’ theories of international trade. It also continues to provide the underlying economic ethic for liberal International Political Economy (IPE). Ricardo’s numerical illustration of the mutually shared gains from specialisation and trade involved complementary structures of comparative advantage being exhibited by a productively superior hypothetical ‘Portugal’ and a productively inferior hypothetical ‘England’. Yet, the historical back-story of actual eighteenth-century trading relations between the two countries reveals Portugal’s repeated struggles to meet its treaty obligations to the English in the context of the European quest for empire. Those difficulties persisted even when it harnessed its (less profitable) commercial trade to (much more profitable) slave trading practices. Ricardo’s account of the purely mathematical logic of comparative advantage writes out of economic history the centrality of both imperial wars and African slavery to the early English and Portuguese experience of ‘free’ trade. Given this historical back-story, liberal IPE thus appears to be in urgent need of new normative foundations to decouple it from these highly illiberal economic processes.     

Sraffa’s Constructive and Interpretive Work,and Marx

ABSTRACT

This article provides a summary account of Piero Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work on the classical approach to the theory of value and distribution and its relationship with Marx’s contributions. It is shown that in the early phase of his constructive work Sraffa developed his equation systems by adopting a ‘physical real cost’ approach and a strictly objectivist point of view, and completely eschewed Marx’s labour-based approach and the related Marxian concepts. Only at a later stage did he explore systematically the relationship between his own modern re-formulation of the surplus approach to the theory of value and distribution and Marx’s contribution. He considered Marx’s most important analytical contribution to the further development of the surplus approach to consist of the re-integration of circular production relations, which allowed him to see the existence of a maximum rate of profits and its role in an analysis of accumulation and technical change.     

Schumpeter’s new combinations

The paper focuses attention on Schumpeter’s achievements in his classic contribution and how these relate to the contributions of other major authors. While deeply indebted to Marx’s vision of capitalism as a system incessantly in travail, Schumpeter was no ‘Marxist’. He shared B?hm’s view that profits are not due to ‘exploitation’, but thought that the latter’s attack on Marx was a failure. There are remarkable differences, but also similarities between the analyses of Schumpeter and Keynes. Marx, Schumpeter and Keynes rejected Say’s law and other basic ideas constituting the marginalist doctrine. They saw capitalism as a restless, crisis-prone system.     

Removing an ‘insuperable obstacle’ in the way of an objectivist analysis: Sraffa's attempts at fixed capital *

Abstract

The paper discusses Sraffa's consecutive attempts in the late 1920s and early 1940s to tackle a problem which endangered his objectivist, surplus-based approach to the theory of value and distribution aimed at reviving the standpoint of the classical economists. Whilst with circulating capital the value transfer to the product and the physical ‘destruction’ of the input are one and the same thing, with fixed capital this is not so. Sraffa eventually overcame the difficulty in terms of the joint products-method. This allowed him to explain relative prices and the rate of profits strictly in ‘material terms’.     

Sraffa: the theoretical world of the ‘old classical economists’ *

Sraffa's mature work is seen here as a re-discovery and resumption of the ‘submerged and forgotten’ approach of the ‘old classical economists from Adam Smith to Ricardo’. Wages determined by broad economic and social forces entail there product prices determined independently of demand and supply functions. Some main questions raised for the modern economists by this radical reorientation of economic theory are then considered in order to conclude that it is aginst that background that Sraffa's mature work should be set with its three main contributions, of a rediscovery of the approach, of a complete and transparent solution of the problems of price determination it raises, and of its application to the critique of neoclassical theory. Among several developments originating from Sraffa's seminal work, two are singled out for mention: (i) the possibility of deficiencies of aggregate demand in the long period no less than in the short one; this follows naturally from the abandonment of the neoclassical theory of distribution, of which the role of the interset rate in equilibrating savings and investment is a corollary; (ii) the question of the distribution of the surplus between wages and profits in a modern economy where wages are no longer confined to subsistence.     

Tozer on machinery

This paper examines John Edward Tozer's mathematical treatment of the classical approach to the machinery problem and his discussion of some arithmetical examples that had been presented by Barton, Sismondi, McCulloch and Ricardo. It is shown that Tozer (1) made a genuine contribution to the contemporary debates on the machinery issue, (2) anticipated modern formulations of the problem of the choice of technique, and (3) revealed a puzzling inconsistency in Ricardo's argument in the famous chapter ‘On Machinery’.     

In defence of Adam Smith's theory of value

Abstract

This paper defends Adam Smith against his critics on his ‘additive’ theory of value as well as his theory of ‘falling rate of profits’. It argues that Adam Smith did not forget the raw materials, and so forth, in his resolution of the price into wages, profits, and rent, and that the constraint binding on the total income was also taken into account by treating rent as the residual. It further argues that there is no fallacy of composition in Smith's explanation for the ‘falling rate of profits’. It was explained on the basis of rising real wages and the farmers’ inability to shift the burden of the rise in wages from profit to rent in the context of a growing economy.     

The rent disease: Achille Loria’s criticism to the capitalistic society

This paper is a reconstruction and a reconsideration of Achille Loria’s (1857–1943) economic and social thought, in particular his criticism of capitalism. Loria, a leader of the Italian and European economic science of his generation, was convinced that the true and most relevant conflict in the capitalistic society was that between rent and profit. Loria, following David Ricardo, considered this conflict much more radical than the profit-wages one, and therefore assigned to income redistribution a central place in his theory. Loria was an outstanding economist in the first part of his career (1780–1900), but underwent a sudden decline with the advent of the marginalist revolution, when his “classic” approach to political economy was considered obsolete and wrong. The paper claims that Loria’s system deserves to be reconsidered, and that his criticisms are particularly relevant in contemporary financial capitalism based again on rent seeking.     

Reply to Gehrke

This paper responds to Christian Gehrke's comment, and argues that the main conclusion of my earlier paper is sustained—that, contrary to Sraffa, Marx did not ‘adopt’ in any sense of the word the joint product method of treating fixed capital. It agrees with Gehrke that Torrens adopted a form of the joint product method, and that Malthus seems to have followed Torrens in this regard. However, it argues that Ricardo did not adopt the joint product method, not even in the one instance cited by Sraffa. Finally, it argues briefly that Marx's ‘transformation of value’ method of treating fixed capital and depreciation is superior to Sraffa's joint product method.     

Josef Steindl's relations to Italian economics ∗

The paper discusses Steindl's impact on Italian economists, both through his writings and through direct personal influence. Three representative Italian economists are considered: Sylos Labini, Becattini and Salvati. This provides the opportunity for a cursory discussion of some aspects of Steindl's theory of stagnation and market forms, of his methodology, of post-Keynesian distribution theory. The limits of this latter theory are discussed with reference to the Smithian ‘competition of capitals’ and the Sraffian assumption of a uniform rate of profits; a possible reconciliation between the post-Keynesian and Sraffian approaches to distribution is then sketched. Steindl's role in the Trieste School for advanced economic studies is also briefly illustrated.     

Sraffa and the Marshallian tradition*

Abstract

The paper retraces some of the stages in Sraffa's thinking about the work of Marshall, by drawing on unpublished material in the Sraffa archive from 1923 to 1930. It argues that Sraffa transformed his dissent – which was based on ideological grounds – into a ‘quest for the fatal error’ to demolish the logical construction of Marshallian theory. Some of his attacks were successful (for example, the critique of the relation between costs and output); other attempts failed (the critique of the ‘normal rate of profit’ and the critique of the concept of marginal productivity) since Sraffa could not find enough textual evidence to support his position.     

A panel data approach to price–value correlations

Resorting to stationary and nonstationary panel data econometrics, we offer tests for “Ricardo’s 93% theory of value” for ten OECD countries over different time ranges. The theory does not find empirical support.     

Say's involvement in the 1819 French edition of Ricardo's Principles and the issue of rent

This paper focuses on Say's contribution to the first French edition of Ricardo's Principles and on the analytical consequences of his involvement on the issue of rent. Part one investigates the “story” of this edition. It stresses Say's friendship with the translator, his involvement in this publication and his attitude toward Ricardo. Part two analyses how elements from Say's thought were introduced into Ricardo's theory of rent through this edition. These elements conveyed ideas which were definitely at odds with Ricardo's theory and misrepresented Ricardo's true concept of differential rent which was central to his theory.