|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
How many Prussian units did he investigate? My source (Brookes & Dick) says 10 army corps whereas this article says 14 cavalry corps. Did he investigate both types? Can somebody check against the source material? JPF 22:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
which mathematicians have said that the poisson distribution should be called Bortkiewicz distribution? are there sources?
Title & Marx and Bortkiewicz
A couple of remarks on the current version:
1) The article should be title "Bortkiewicz, Ladislaus", not "Ladislaus, Bortkiewicz"
2) There are some mistakes in the following statement:
"In political economy, Bortkiewicz is important for his analysis of Karl Marx's reproduction schema in the last two volumes of Capital. Bortkiewicz identified a transformation problem in Marx's work which, if proven, would profoundly undermine Marx's claim to have provided a consistent account of capitalist economics. This work provided the basis of major elaborations by Joseph Schumpeter and Paul Sweezy among others."
a) Bortkiewicz didn't contribute the the analysis of Marx's repreductions schema. That was Mikhail Tugan-Baranowsky.
b) The reproductions schemes are in the second volumen of Capital, not in the "last two volumnes.
c) Bortkiewicz didn't "identified a transformation problem in Marx's work". That was, again, Tugan Baranowsky. Bortkiewicz only elaborate upon Tugan position on this matter in a series of articles that were divulgated by Sweezy in the 40s. Sweezy didn't underline Tugan's contribution to this matter perhaps because he was a anti-bolshevik politician just afterward Russian Revolution. Bortkiewicz was a more "neutral" intelectual in this sense and also had a more mathematically elaborated version of the problem.
d) Tugan and Bortkiewicz versions of the "transformation problem" are set in a very restictive and irrealistic world and are based on a very debatable reading of Marx's original text. Recent work on more elaborated, dynamic, versions tend to support the idea that the "transformation problem" doesn't damage Marx's hypothesis. Access to new textual evidence also support this point.
d) What is the "major elaboration" of Schumpeter on the basis of Bortkiewicz work?
Added the reference "Die Rodbertus'sche Grundrententheorie und die Marx'sche Lehre von der absoluten Grunderenten, from Die Archiv fur die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, 1910-11" , from Schumpeter, "History of Economic Analysis" (1968) pg. 933, n5 MatthewRusso (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Bortkiewicz ATTEMPTED to solve what he saw or thought was a problem with Marx's solution to the transformation problem, he did NOT actually do this and to imply such a thing is very problematic. This transformation 'problem' was evident to Marx in that he mentions it in Chapter 9 of Vol III: 'the development given above also involves a modifcation in the dtermination of a commodity's cost price. It was originally assum,ed that the cost price of a commodity equalled the value of the commodities consumed in its production. but for the buyer of a commodity, it is the price of production that constitutes its cost price and can thus enter into forming the price of another commodity. as the price of production of a commodity can diverge from its value, so the cost price of a commodity, in which the price of production of other commodities is involved, can also stand above or below the portion of its total value that is formed by the value of the means of prod. going into it. it is necessary to bear in mind this modified significance of the cost price, and there to bear in mind too that if the cost price of a comm. is equated with the value of the means of production used uip in producing it, it is always possible to go wrong" (p. 264-5 penguin ed).
In the words of Mandel, this quote from Marx should not be made to say more than it does. it says only that "if one uses value calculations in inputs and prices of production calculations in outputs, then one is likely to arrive at numerically erroneous conclusions...[and this] does not imply that prices of production of inputs should be calculated within the same time span as prices of production of outputs." p.23.
Moreover, some of the underlying theoretical assumptions of Bortkiewicz system -- for example, it is evident that in the aggregate of dept 1, those means of prod. which are exclusively used for the production of commodities in department III will have a diff status-- leads unavoidably to the elimination of all value calculations and of exploitation itself from the system (see Pierre Salama, Sur la valeur, Paris, 1975, p.165).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)