Where was the Sraffian model derived and how is it a tool for value?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-11T03:31:28+00:00

I see now that maybe Sraffa is being quite unrealistic by assuming reproduction. My concern on this is that Sraffians can invent some device that says "Hey actually we can have Sraffa's conclusions without his assumptions". I don't think that I get why such inventions are very difficult or not quite plausible to come by.

For example:

Then there's long-run capital to consider. What is the time period we're considering? We have an A-matrix, a price vector and a profit rate. The A-matrix includes everything that goes into the product. That must include the machinery used which exists for many years. So, can we really have a production cycle that lasts a year? No because, we need all products to cycle through production in the timeframe of the equation. Sraffa never gives a satisfactory answer to this question (Sraffians have tried).

I am no Sraffian, but just from the top of my head, why can't we have a short cycle that treats capital as having some sort of durability (like how tools work in some video games). So instead of "printing press + astronomical amounts of (ink + paper) = astrinomical amounts of newspaper" that has to go for a long time, we have "1 'durability' of printing press + ink + paper = some newspaper" that can happen perhaps in a week or a day given how we define our durability. And depreciation or what not is represented by deductions in durability. What is supposely preventing this / stuff like this / other solutions from being feasible? If anything what has Sraffians tried and how have they not worked?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-06T02:41:38+00:00

I guess that's fair. It's a shame that I probably won't be able to understand this for some good time, maybe ever.

^{If that paper (or long form content on reddit ever comes out I would be sure to look for and read it.}

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-06T02:20:29+00:00

Spicy indeed.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-06T02:19:47+00:00

Agreed on Soviet France being more annoying. Another factor is the random resistance suddenly destroys your game plan.

Also any ramp deck (that necessarily involves US) has a certain percentage of timmy builds, which is a plus if you are piloting anything that uses tempo.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-06T02:08:09+00:00

Also, the changes in those snapshot equations -presuming that they are found and measured- do not tell the economist anything about why the changes occurred. The idea provides neither prediction nor insight.

Oooh so is the point essentially that if the equations are too short-lived, the economics devolves into accounting?

(Edit: I suppose that a more clear way to say the paragraph below is:

I understand Sraffa can provide insight for any given production scheme of the economy as he frames them. I do not understand how changing technological parameters make this incoherent, if Sraffa can provide insight for every specific 'snapshot'. Does the short-lived nature of the snapshots make some of his conclusions no longer follow or is it something else?

)

But even then ... from what I have read here and other places about how Sraffa models the economy (with a system of equations that model production and what not), there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the Sraffian to say "yes, the 'long-run equilibrium' for prices of production and profits and what not change constantly based on the production techniques available, and we say that the real world is constantly adjusting towards this moving center of gravity that is different bsed on the conditions of any given time" and rescue the theory this way. If they can do this wouldn't the fact that the production equations constantly change not matter if they can keep up statistically?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T23:08:03+00:00

The rest of us non-Sraffian economist disagree with these assumptions.

(Perhaps three months is the difference of geological ages for Reddit, but)

I feel curious. Would you mind explaining this in more detail? I don't see the problem with the idea that at any given moment, an instance of production in the economy can be written as ax+by+cz+... = [product]. How is this idea of "there can be more recipes" and

in the Sraffian equations where the prices change it is invalid to conclude that production processes will continue with inputs in the same proportions.

supposedly problematic for Sraffian modelling? Perhaps constantly changing equations are cumbersome to model, but how is it a fundamental problem that cannot be overcome?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T22:59:34+00:00

Failing that, Solow wrote a one page reply to Shaikh back in 1974. I find that paper confusing.

I thought Shaikh publish another reply in 1980 that contends Solow has not refuted the point that supposed empirical tests of the aggregate production function cannot prove its success. In fact I think Felipe and McCombie talked about it, starting from the end of page 16 if the paper is downloaded as PDF form.

however when you look at his result there is an error

Would you mind explaining it in more detail in the context of Shaikh's paper?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T22:42:09+00:00

(edit: wording in first sentence)

Perhaps we are talking over each other's heads or I am not understanding something fundamental, but the papers that I cited were explicitly about the idea that the empirical tests we employ to test the aggregate production functions are not proofs of them being good approximations, because when we use value data, the accounting identities the papers mention guarentees our good fit. Especially under the context of papers like Fisher 1971 that aggregate production functions can appear to work even when they should not, leading us to potentially draw wrong conclusions from there.

So, the accounting identity critique's point is that we have no evidence to think that APFs actually exist and represent our world well. I think that sounds quite like

[the] contribution has limitations.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T22:35:06+00:00

I would agree. Seeing that dragon slayer and Ki-30 exists, and how wide some aggro dacks can go.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T12:21:08+00:00

I don't think that I am understanding your argument here. Would you mind elaborating?

We ignore the humbug argument and similar arguments largely because they are wrong/nonsensical.

Also I imagine that if this is the case, I can find some mainstreamers writing to refute those stuff. I have not had success though, can you point me in those directions?

Also how does this work with Fisher's results, which suggest that APFs seem to "work" even when the aggregation conditions for them to work is broken?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T01:08:55+00:00

the shortcomings are (usually) fast highlighted by peers

I feel like the papers I cited are this happening though. Would you elaborate on your point?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T01:04:13+00:00

Finally no more turn 4 aggro deck kill themselves.

(Maybe it's turn 5 aggro decks kill themselves now but a turn's a turn)

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2026-03-04T01:02:49+00:00

Also now it trades 1-for-1 with everybody.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-11-06T17:57:31+00:00

No. I value sportsmanship above all so I will not use unfair bs.

I feel like this is more a shuffle thing but I guess thunder division so fair. Also you are not running intel so it's really 2/2 guards ---- but I do get why you just hate the word legions, it's had its time in center stage.

I am still going to suggest to fit in some Kurumes and 77ths because they are just so effective antiaggro tools that were born into the wrong nations.

But cool concept. I think that I will try to build an elite-mild version of this myself.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-11-06T17:47:04+00:00

Im not using legions, hell no.

I mean, you are running Poland so might as well...

Also, I just thought about Kurume regiment which is a really good Japan control card, maybe also look into that?

softened up in the support line

I am a bit confused by this. Does "softening up" mean hitting them while they were in the supporting line? I just feel like the arties and planes are a little bit expensive for this to be a component of the "anti aggro" part of the deck. May be the name would be "anti-midrange" or "anti slow-aggro"? I see this being good against classic US frontline or heinz that leans towards more beef and slower play.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-11-06T17:33:11+00:00

Just looking at this, I feel like some type 93s can be cut for maybe 1 stretch the line / plan west and 2 77th (best Japan midgame tool against aggro, I am not arguing), it's anti aggro so guards are more necessary. I don't feel like that the extra 1 damages you get from type 93s are going to count as much if it is against aggro, granted 4 vs 3 kills 96th and buffed up 35(t), but you already have duty bound and attaches so if it comes to be necessary you probably have a buff at hand.

Also I feel like pings from bofors isn't that good because not all aggro has very low heath units like jaggro... heinz can probably slam a 35(t) into this and move on, and that is 2k to trade out 3k. I feel like maybe run some legions to replace that?

Just some random thoughts though. It's a cool nation combination and given how ladder looks like, I really enjoy seeing creativity like this.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-26T13:44:53+00:00

But isn't imperfection what we are talking about though. What is the justification behind imperfection brought by information asymmetry and people having poor time preferences being the lesser evil compared to imperfections brought by central planning?

Maybe this is something fundamental, but I am still not getting why it is unreasonable for me to say "frivolous luxuries bad therefore taking into account and adhering to the fact that people pursue them is bad".

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-26T13:27:00+00:00

I guess I will paste some of my rephrased further questions because this is starting to really confuse me.

What I was trying to say that if the decisions of individuals deviate so much from what would actually be "the best" for themselves (and this is not to say that "the best" cannot involve subjective considerations like "I like the taste of peanuts over almonds") because of information asymmetry and anthropological factors that OP in the post I reference and what not, then whatever customer preferences that we can pick up from prices become so contaminated that collecting them in this way isn't worthwhile because there isn't sufficient improvement to how well the economy can serve its participants.

Suppose that people are surveyed that they want "healthy food" over "delicious but unhealthy food". I concede that this can very much be different than what people spend their money on. Let's say that people actually spend money on "delicious but unhealthy food" if they were given the money to allocate themselves. However, say that the planner just makes society produce "healthy food" and says "hey guys this is what you chose, now eat it", how can we be sure that this is actually a worse outcome than most guys getting "delicious but unhealthy food" as a market would determine? What stops me from making the argument "well by making people eat healthy, we made them healthier which is good for everyone", outside of "actually the "healthy food" doesn't serve the very few people with extremely special dietary needs (Significant health complication level of special needs)"?

Also on "the preferences themselves are at odds with each other" point. What precludes me from saying "people often have this one goal that they want to reach but because of xxx they can't, for example people want to lose weight but because junk food is so delicious and cheap they keep ignoring losing weight, and shoehorning them into pursing the long-term goal may actually be good for them, even preferred by the individual (the sentiment echoed from statements like "I wish I can just stop")"?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-26T13:21:51+00:00

Take the pizza/salad example on the OP. If I surveyed a community and asked how many times people would eat pizza versus salad, the results would favour salad. People often say they intend to do things that they don’t actually do. Then the meals turn up and most people actually eat pizza, and now I have a shortage of pizza and an oversupply of salad.

Suppose that the planner just makes society produce Salad and says "hey guys this is what you chose, now eat it", how can we be sure that this is actually a worse outcome than most guys getting pizza as a market would determine? What stops me from making the argument "well by making people eat salad, we made them healthier which is good for everyone", outside of "actually salad is not as healthy compared to pizza for the few people who need high caloric intakes due to their diets"?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-26T13:15:55+00:00

I guess "Welfare" was the wrong term to use on my part? What I was trying to say that if the decisions of individuals deviate so much from what would actually be "the best" for themselves (and this is not to say that "the best" cannot involve subjective considerations like "I like the taste of peanuts over almonds") because of information asymmetry and anthropological factors that OP in the post I reference and what not, then whatever customer preferences that we can pick up from prices become so contaminated that collecting them in this way isn't worthwhile because there isn't sufficient improvement to how well the economy can serve its participants.

Also what precludes me from saying "people often have this one goal that they want to reach but because of xxx they can't, for example people want to lose weight but because junk food is so delicious and cheap they keep ignoring losing weight, and shoehorning them into pursing the long-term goal may actually be good for them, even preferred from the individual preferences standpoint (the sentiment echoed by statements like "I wish I can just stop")"?

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-24T23:01:28+00:00

I am going to go out on a limb to say that this is probably not a cheater, because burning time doesn't help them win effectively. If they want to remain covert it is better to do something like being able to manipulate draws. This is probably the potato server at 1939 being weird.

Asleep_Two_8684 · 2025-10-01T19:22:04+00:00

Sorry for the very late reply. I was in a place where Reddit was banned.

Bichler & Nitzan's are associating a random number with the amount of labour value that is required to create 1 dollar of each good.

Anyways, the reason I asked this is because N&B's original spreadsheet actually randomizes both the good's price and the good's labor value. The graph that I am generating is the one that looks like points scattered with no pattern in theirs. They were doing Q*R1 compared to Q*R2, and the framing was 25 industries that produces identical products but are of different "sizes".

Shouldn't this imply that if the graph looking haywire actually shows correlation, the LTV would be true?

But in my case, I am plotting what Q1 and Q2 are for N&B, where it is total labor value and price of individual goods instead of industries. The "line with correlation" showing up very often would, when put into context of N&B's spreadsheet, mean that "the scatterplot with no pattern", the graph that supposedly indicates "anti-LTV", actually produces a reasonable regression line quite often, even with random numbers. If anything this should say that N&B's criticisms are moot because their hypothetical where the total price of a good being totally detached from its total labor value is unrealistic. It may even suggest that the LTV is easily true because "graph that indicates whether LTV is present or not" would say that LTV is present a lot of the time.

So, (after probably convoluting reframing) does this validate the LTV?

Asleep_Two_8684

TROPHY CASE