Notes
1 See Heal and Chichilnisky (1991).
2 See Rath-Nagel and Voss (1981) for a review article.
3 See Parrinello (1982, 1983, 2001 and 2004); Roncaglia (1983, 2009 and 2016); Kurz and Salvadori (1995 and 2001); Schefold (1989).
4 Nordhaus (1973), Schefold (1989), Kurz and Salvadori (1995 and 2001), Bidard and Erreygers (2007).
5 See Parrinello (2001) and the criticism raised to it by Bidard and Erreygers (2007). My argument departs also from the sharp negative view that “no economist ever tried to explain oil prices with direct recourse to the Ricardian theory of rent” (Roncaglia, 2009, 141 fn).
6 See Schefold (1989) and Kurz and Salvadori (1995).
7 See J. S. Mill (1848, vol. 3, ch. 5). The passage quoted in the text is available at: http://www. econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP34.html, § III.5.10 and has been already reported by Kurz and Salvadori (1995, 371).
8 See Schefold (1989, ch. 19).
9 See Schefold (1989, ch. 19b).
10 See Schefold (1989, 229, ch. 19b). This remark applies, despite the fact that even an interest rate close to zero does not make the Hotelling’s rule a trivial condition.
11 For simplicity the word “reproduction” is used in the text as an expression encompassing the notion of a physical self-replacing state and that of “viability,” which means self-replacement in value for each industry. The distinction between the two notions has been recently resumed
and developed by Bellino (2016), who stresses the fact that both notions are not confined to a steady state or proportional growth path, but the former (physical) is more restrictive than the other (in value), which is not ruled out by all non-self-replacing states.
12 In Parrinello (2004), I used the neologism “effectual supply” to characterize the flow of an exhaustible natural resource available for production.
13 In the general model with joint production we should account for the possibility of multiple solutions.
14 See Roncaglia (1975 and 2009), According to Roncaglia, Sraffa himself has suggested this analogy in passing (cfr. Roncaglia, 2009, 50fn17).
15 This interpretation has been adopted in different writings by Piero Garegnani.
16 We read, “there is no reason to assume that the quantities produced coincide with the quantities in demand when prices of production prevail (Smith's ‘effectual demand'), commodity by commodity” (Roncaglia, 2009, 133).
17 Ginzburg (2015, 72fn50) addresses his criticism to such a literal notion of snapshot, which he attributes to Roncaglia. See the reply to Ginzburg (2000) by Roncaglia (2009, 50 fn17).
18 To test the property of being (not by definition) centers of gravitation of market prices would require a whole series of snapshots (the metaphor of a sequence of frames of a film) or a crosssectional analysis of actual states of the economy, which is a procedure beyond the scope of Sraffa's theory of prices.