Talk:Piero Sraffa

Untitled
Need to link to Capital controversy Charles Stewart 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This thing is sorely in need of some structure, but I sure can't be bothered to fix it right now. -- Echeneida

Sources and Interpretations
Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and I need help inserting several sources. I referenced them, namely Ajit Sinha's (2009) article on the influence of Sraffa on the later Wittgenstein (available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422388), Sinha's (2015) article on Sraffa's influence on the methodology of economics (available here: http://jie.sagepub.com/content/27/1/33.refs), a retrospective on Sraffa edited by Kurz (from which a selection and the citation is available here: http://dse.ec.unipi.it/~salvadori/pdf/Ch1-LegacyCUP.pdf). Ajit Sinha's interpretation of Sraffa, namely that he completely repudiated supply and demand is controversial, though is backed up by significant archival evidence. Sinha's 2010 work "Theories of Value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa" began this inquiry and he has a new monograph coming out this year on this interpretation. Nonetheless, while his interpretation may be controversial, his presentation of the two orthodox interpretations, specifically Garegnani and Samuelson (and not to mention Kurz and Salvadori) is not. This is why I cite him. Anyway, if you could help me create the references--I cited them numerically in the text, but not in the references section, I'd appreciate it. Amilcontentanalysis (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dates
Different dates appear on Find-A-Grave. Lincher 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sraffa a Radical Marxist ?
I have deleted the allegation '''Sraffa was at this time a radical Marxist. '''. First there is no proof given and second, there is no evidence that he joined the Party. That he was collaboration, there is no doubt. Samuelson is discussing whether Sraffa was member or not of the party – obviously to him a highly important theoretical element – with no definite conclusion. Cuauti (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rich from Japanese bonds?
The story about Sraffa buying Japanese bonds the day after the atomic bombing and then getting rich seems really fishy. Defeated governments typically don't honor bonds. I googled this to look for corroboration, and all I found was articles that 1) protrayed it as an urban legend, 2) were copies of this Wikipedia article, 3) cited this article as a source, or 4) provided no reliable source. A discussion I saw also hinted that what actually happened was that he bought the bonds at the beginning of reconstruction, which seems a lot more reasonable. Does anyone have any reliable source for this claim at all? MrVoluntarist 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm is the source of the "dubious assertion".

Okay, that's just a brief profile on him, and that specific claim isn't sourced. Even if I accept it at face value, note the difference: The source you gave claims that he bought the bonds "after Hiroshima", from a "defeated Japan", believing they wouldn't lie in "postwar rubble". The last two imply the war was over, and defeat conceded, which was NOT the day after the bombings. And "after Hiroshima" doesn't necessarily mean the day after. Btw, I know you can find lots of stuff on the internet perpetuating this bit. The reason I brought it up was that all of them seem to point to unreliable sources, and it sounds too much like an urban legend. I could justify chaning the Wikipedia article's wording to just say he bought them "after the bombings", and leave it un ambigous, and then change "dubious" to "citation needed". Reasonable? MrVoluntarist 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with the removal of the description, myself. The above brief profile doesn't exactly give details on the story, but itself reports it as being "an anecdote".  The claim is conceivable, but I just don't see it as properly cited/supported yet.  LotLE × talk  17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd want it removed too, but I'm worried people will just want to re-insert it if they don't see it upon reading it the first time, thinking it's "obvious" that it should be added (and so won't consult the talk pages). Is there a way we can acknowledge the existence of this urban legend, while noting the doubts?  Is this rumor about him something people would want to know when learning about him? MrVoluntarist 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

History of mathematics
An anonymous editor has added a description of Sraffa's relation to the history of mathematics that I frankly cannot really make any sense of. What exactly is being claimed here? Why is it notable? Is it original research? I see some books cited, but I cannot figure out why they are cited or what point they are meant to support. Can anyone else understand this? LotLE × talk 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition

 * Added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.32.176 (talk • contribs) 
 * Earlier version by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.24.187 (talk • contribs) 

Recently, Sraffa's mathematical orientation has begun to be studied in the context of the history of twentieth-century mathematics. Above all, Garciadiego's BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES' (1992) has called into question the mathematics (which has several schools, such as "natural" and "intuitionist" mathematics) provoked by paradoxes in Cantorian set theory which may not be paradoxes. Poincare in particular was set on developing a mathematical approach which would "avoid" these putative paradoxes, and his mathematical agenda informs his most widely circulated work, SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS. This book not only affected Sraffa. Einstein was hugely influenced by it and wrote about it in glowing terms.

How much is PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES affected by Poincare's agenda? Now that Sraffa's papers are open to inspection, Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori--two of the leading Sraffa scholars--have begun (although only begun) to reveal the influence of Poincare and the response to set theory, on that work. This has allowed us to begin discussing Sraffa's work in an entirely new set of terms. A revolution in Sraffa studies has begun. Kurz writes:

"Sraffa studied intensively Jules Henri Poincaré's La Science e l'Hypothèse (1902). From his annotations relating especially to chapter VIII, 'Énergie et Thermodynamique' (see Sraffa 3137), we can infer that in his view an objectivist approach in any of the fields of natural philosophy had to take into account the principles of thermodynamics. He read and took excerpts from Heinrich Hertz's Principles of Mechanics (1899), focusing attention on the physicists' concepts of 'cause' and 'interdependence', and their corresponding role in economic theory, and on the problem of which kind of 'quantities' could in principle be taken as given in order to determine some other quantities (see D1/9: 8-10). These considerations find an echo in a document presumably written in the second half of 1929 in which Sraffa specified those 'quantities {that} have an objective, independent existence at every or some instants of the natural (i.e. not interfered with by the experimenter) process of production and distribution; they can therefore be measured physically, with the ordinary instruments of measuring number, weight, time, etc.' He stressed: 'These are the only quantities which must enter as constants in economic theory, i.e. which can be assumed to be "known" or "given".' (D3/12/13: 2)13

"Representing the Production and Circulation of Commodities in Material Terms: On Sraffa's Objectivism" http://www.uni-graz.at/heinz.kurz/pdf/On_the_classical_approach.pdf#search=%22sraffa%20poincare%22, page 18.

Ten years ago we would never have dreamed of discussing Sraffa's work in terms of "objectivity," much less "thermodynamics" or the "natural process of production." These are all, not only terms of art, but also, they are terms of art within an historical context. Putting PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES into historical context--as a work of the dominant modes of thinking during the early twentieth century--has now begun.


 * It looks to me VERY like original research, a university essay, probably a very good one. The writers cited are Garcadiego (book, may not be directly relevant), Heinz Kurz (online article, can probably be cited) and Neri Salvadori (no reference cited). The text should stay out until someone can independently read and summarise these documents, as far as they are relevant. I will have a look at Kurz when I have a moment. Itsmejudith 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Had a quick look at the link, which is Kurz and Salvadori. The article is concerned to point out Sraffa's turn from subjectivism to objectivism. It does not have an immediate relationship to mathematical theory. I have found some other references which should be useful to this article.

Gehrke, C; Kurz, HD Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the classical theory of value and distribution HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 38 (1): 91-149 SPR 2006

Pasinetti, LL The Sraffa-enigma: Introduction EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 373-378 SEP 2005

Naldi, N Piero Sraffa: Emigration and scientific activity (1921-45) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 379-402 SEP 2005

Rosselli, A Sraffa and the Marshallian tradition EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 403-423 SEP 2005

Marcuzzo, MC Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 425-452 SEP 2005

Garegnani, P On a turning point in Sraffa's theoretical and interpretative position in the late 1920s EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 453-492 SEP 2005

Kurz, HD; Salvadori, N Removing an 'insuperable obstacle' in the way of an objectivist analysis: Sraffa's attempts at fixed capital EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT, 12 (3): 493-523 SEP 2005

Kerr, P A history of post-Keynesian economics CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 29 (3): 475-496 MAY 1 2005

Para, JB Between Wittgenstein and Gramsci - Piero Sraffa, outline of a portrait EUROPE-REVUE LITTERAIRE MENSUELLE, (906): 249-250 OCT 2004

Bellino, E On Sraffa's Standard commodity CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 28 (1): 121-132 JAN 2004

Sen, A Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, 41 (4): 1240-1255 DEC 2003

Harcourt, GC Piero Sraffa's political economy: A centenary estimate. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (3): 582-586 FAL 2003

Porta, PL Piero Sraffa: His life, thought, and cultural heritage. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (3): 598-602 FAL 2003

Cohen, AJ Critical essays on Piero Sraffa's legacy in economics. HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 35 (1): 164-166 SPR 2003

Foley, DK Sraffa's legacy CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 27 (2): 225-238 MAR 1 2003


 * Hope this helps. I'm responding to Request for Comment btw. Itsmejudith 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation 2 is a mix
This is a mix of Shackle and Hicks: What is cited was written by Shackle in the Economic Journal 1930 resuming the Symposium. (republished: Shackle, G. L., 1967, The Years of High Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 45) Hicks (1939, Welfare Economics ?) concluded that Sraffa’s critique ruins the assumption of perfect competition leaving neoclassical theory a wreck. But to salvage something from the wreck we could go on as if perfect competition is given, taking into account that this is a dangerous step. (republished: Hicks, J. R., 1957, Value and Capital, An Inquiry into some fundamental Principles of Economic Theory, Claredon Press, Oxford, page 83-5.)

''It seems to be agreed that this situation [increasing returns] has to be met by sacrificing the assumption of perfect competition. … [Y]et is has to be recognized that a general abandonment of the assumption of perfect competition … must have very destructive consequences for economic theory. … and the basis on which economic laws can be constructed is therefore shorn away. … It is; I believe, only possible to save anything from this wreck – and it must be remembered that the threatened wreckage is that of the greater part of general equilibrium theory – if we can assume that markets confronting most of the firms which we shall be dealing do not differ very greatly from perfectly competitive markets. … We must be aware, however, that we are taking a dangerous step, and probably limiting to a serious extend the problems with which our subsequent analysis will be fitted to deal.'' Cuauti (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WPP Economics classification
I've rated this as a B-class article of High importance: it's clearly less important to that project than Karl Marx, which is high importance, and almost as clearly more important than Friedman's k-percent rule which gets top importance... --- Charles Stewart (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20061021074903/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sraffa's critique
At the end of the penultimate paragraph of Sraffa is written: Sraffa sought to replace the individualistic and positivistic account of price as the result of an equilibration of supply and demand, for instead as price serving a social function, namely to reproduce a stationary or expanding economy given a distribution of income. This seems grammatically nonsensical. Could someone pls clarify what is intended? (The reference given is also unverifiable)LookingGlass (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piero Sraffa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040906131234/http://rabbit.trin.cam.ac.uk/~jon/Msscolls/Sraffa.html to http://rabbit.trin.cam.ac.uk/~jon/Msscolls/Sraffa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Piero Sraffa Page
I found some inaccuracies in the biography of Piero Sraffa. Is it possible to change them, or risk blocking the profile? I would like to add some information on the biography. thank you very much! --G.cusumano (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can provide sources for your changes and you are confident in the quality of your sources, just go ahead and edit. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)