This is an interesting paper. In summary, it presents an abstract (mathematical) model of an idealized capitalist economy. It then shows how such a model actually connects the empiric economic phenomena studied separately. The list of empiric economic phenomena that it ties together is the following: i) the tendency of capital concentration and unequal distribution of wealth; ii) the distribution of firm sizes across sectors; iii) the distribution between firm size and GDP growth; iv) the distribution of recession durations; v) the distribution of firm demises; vi) the rate of profit distribution.
Not everyone has had a formal mathematical education, so understanding the statistics behind the model can be daunting. But the discussion and conclusion are understandable to everyone who wishes to read them. The main point is that the model is true to life.
It is also based on a weak form of the labor theory of value. It also follows Marx's ideas about how social revolution comes about. Hence, it also draws some necessarily political conclusions. As the authors say
>The aim was to understand the possible economic consequences of the social relations of production considered in isolation and develop a model that included money and historical time as essential elements. The theoretical motivation for the approach is grounded in Marx’s distinction between the invariant social relations of production and the varying forces of production. Standard economic models typically do not pursue this distinction.Italics mine. The current bourgeois political economy is based on subjective, psychological theories of value. That was true 100 years ago when Bukharin was polemicizing against Bohm-Bawker & Co. in the introduction to his "Theories of Leisure Classes." True, says Bukharin, suppose that the conclusions of your theories are based on impeccable mathematics, your methodology, and your initial assumptions are still incorrect, and as a direct consequence, your theories have no practical (economic) value. The methodology of every non-classical economist (not upholding some labor theory of value) is based on some fictive state of things, never present in human history.
True, the model of capitalism presented in the paper is also an abstract model, never seen in human history. But the model reflects and connects different aspects of political economy credibly. It is a true reflection
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.