But I will chime in anyway as also interested in Ed’s thoughts about the course. So far I have only got through chapter 1 of Anwar Shaikh’s 2016 book due to other distractions. But I am reasonably certain its length (1000 pages) and “heaviness” is fully justified by the weightiness of the task of dealing with both mainstream and heterodox economics while analysing current reality. This is clearly “essential reading” and I will thoroughly study the whole book.

]]>I have downloaded that book, along with his other books from here:

Intend to follow up as I do recall that he stood out as vastly better than the Steedman’s et all when I looked many decades ago.

I have just had a quick glance at the mathematical appendix to his 1977 paper on the “problem” from his publications page:

http://anwarshaikhecon.org/index.php/publications

Confirmed my impression then that he proved iterating Marx’s “approximation” of initially using untransformed “labor values” then modifying output production prices does converge (in fact Marx could be said to have conjectured the method of much later used in the mathematical proof of the Perron-Frobenius theorem for square matrices).

Had not read properly this or anything else more recent. Will be spending a lot of time catching up with Anwar Shaikh!

But while vastly superior to Steedman et al, and the less malevolent confusions of TSSI, that approach still misses a central point that any technology matrix cannot be square. The choice among many technologies is made dynamically. It depends on prices (including wages and an average rate of profit) and emerges from disproportionalities not equilibrium.

Maksakovsky does not have any mathematics at all, but deals with it far better with simply conflating production prices and values by using the two terms together. He had understood Marx’s dialectical method of developing the concepts by analysing contradictions in their simpler forms to arrive at higher forms. He was actually able to explain the cyclic dynamic which Marx had repeatedly mentioned, in which prices regularly rise and fall as a whole in the course of a business cycle. That simple and well known fact precludes any concept of static equilibrium prices being “transformed”. It requires that “values” be averaged over the course of a business cycle and implies transformation of the concept of value itself.

]]>