ises and agricultural prices fall; a rise in the price of manufacturing labour input (occurs) because of a rising price of subsistence; capital moves out of agriculture into manufacturing following a fall in agricultural profits; and a rise in the price of wheat (occurs) in terms of the invariable measure depresses the relative prices of manufactures and manufacturing profits.
Sraffa's interpretation of Ricardo contends that, in both his Essay" and in Principles, he took the firm position that "agricultural profits determined" the general rate of profit. Not all economists agree with this interpretation. Samuel Hollander took exception to this interpretation, as well as to other interpretations related to Ricardo's concept of profits.
Once outside of the corn model, it is somewhat easy to show that the generally accepted interpretations of Ricardo's concept of profit will not work. Thus, if Hollander is able to deny that the corn model existed, he can easily deny interpretations based on it. O'Brien noted that, "without the corn model, Ricardo's inverse relationship between wages and profits is much more difficult to establish." O'Brien implied that Hollander's essential objections to the generally accepted interpretations of Ricardo's economic theories lie in the fact that those interpretations lend support to neo-Marxian interpretations holding that profits can rise only when wages are held to or near subsistence levels. Although O'Brien himself does not subscribe to the neo-Marxian interpretations, he nevertheless objects to Hollander's wholesale rejection of the generally accepted interpretations of Ricardo's economic theories on these grounds. In so doing, he contends that Hollander rejects a great deal of valid material.
As opposed to O'Brien's critique of both Hollander and some of the other interpretations of Ricardo's economic theories, Garegnani supported fully the generally accepted interpretations as st...