Crítica a la teoría neo-ricardiana (y clásica) del valor

The marginalist and subjectivist revolution led by Carl Menger during the second half of the nineteenth century turned Economics into a science. However, classical value theory did not completely fade away and it has been trying continiously to replace subjetivist theory. The most serious and exhaustive attempt to recover classical value theory in its Ricardian version was the one developed by the italian economist Piero Sraffa. This article seeks to rebut the neo-Ricardian theory of value, while vindicating the Austrian theory of value, even inside the constrains of the former. Key words: Piero Sraffa, Neo-Ricardianism, Value Theory, Subjetivism, Mar-ginalism, Labor Theory. JEL Classification: B24, B51, D46, E43. Resumen: La revolución marginalista y subjetivista liderada por Carl Menger durante la segunda mitad del s. XIX sentó las bases para que la economía pudiera considerarse realmente una ciencia. Sin embargo, la teoría clásica del valor nunca terminó de desaparecer de la escena y en sus muy diversas manifestaciones siguió intentando sobreponerse a la teoría subjetivista. El intento más serio y exhaustivo de resucitar la teoría clásica del valor en su versión ricardiana fue la del economista italiano Piero Sraffa. En este artí-culo se pretende refutar la teoría neorricardiana y reivindicar, incluso dentro de los presupuestos de esta última, la teoría austriaca del valor. Palabras clave: Piero Sraffa, Neorricardianismo, Teoría del Valor, Subjetivismo, Marginalismo, Valor Trabajo. Clasificación JEL: B24, B51, D46, E43.

Ricardian theory of rent as interpreted by Sieber

The article deals with the Ricardian theory of rent as interpreted by one of the first Russian Marxists, Nikolai Sieber. Sieber made great efforts to popularize Marxʼs ideas in Russia. He believed it was his mission to make complex theoretical constructions of Marxism simpler and more understandable for the majority of readers. Sieber began his way to Marxism with the study and translation of the writings on classical political economy by D. Ricardo. Furthermore, Sieber’s texts focus on a wide range of opinions on land rent presented in the works of Russian and foreign economists of the XIX–XX centuries. This article also pays considerable attention to the political aspects of rent, which are perhaps crucial to the issue of rent. This is due to the fact that rent has been and remains an important tool for the redistribution of national income and, therefore, is an element of the political structure. Ricardian theory of rent came into being during the debate over high bread duties in England and was, in fact, an instrument of struggle against landowners who received rental super profits because of high grain prices. Subsequently, this theory was considered as a tool of struggle against the industrial bourgeoisie, which caused its fierce criticism from the apologists of the bourgeoisie.

Anwar Shaikh and the classical theory of interest: a critical note

The Note examines the theory of interest put forward in Shaikh’s recent book Capitalism, Competition, Conflict, Crises which presents the classic Ricardian theory of interest, in which the rate of interest is determined by the industrial rate of profit, as the basis for the book’s analysis of banking and credit. The Note argues that the classic theory of Anwar Shaikh holds true only under special assumptions, namely when money is a produced commodity, and credit is external to the system of capitalist production. However, in the modern capitalist economy, credit is endogenous to the system of production and distribution. In this more general case, debt and interest have the function of redistributing income, but are unrelated to the rate of profit from production.

USA–China Trade War in Light of the Limits of the Comparative Advantage Principle

The trade war, which antagonizes today the United States and China, questions the free trade principle in international trade. To show the dangerousness of this trade war for the world economy, this paper explores the theoretical limits of the comparative advantage principle by analyzing the limitations of the applicability of the comparative costs and endowments criteria. We conclude that the international trade theories not based on the comparative advantage principle are the exception to the rule and therefore, cannot be used to justify the American positions, except to introduce a certain degree of political considerations. Specifically, we show that the international trade theories, other than the Ricardian theory and the HOS factorial theory, are exceptions to the applicability of the comparative costs and endowments criteria. In light of this argument, one should seek explanations of the war-like trade logic of the Trump Administration in the international political economy. In this perspective, international trade is no longer necessarily a positive-sum game.