[OPE-L:3975] Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TheTransformationProblem

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 10:36:55 EDT


As an aside to your comment to ALlin
>A further reply to Allin:
>>  > [T] mistake you are making here is thinking that Marx wants
>>>  to derive the prices at t+1 via a determination of the
>>>  average rate of profit.
>>No, I don't see any "t"s in this analysis.
>Well by putting them there, everything works out, there is no 
>transformation problem, and Marx's value theory does not have to be 
>discarded. The only people who are going to think there is still a 
>transformation problem are those who like the kinds of mathematical 
>problems general equilibrium exercises generate--counting equations 
>and unknowns which seems to make Sraffa so pleasingly familiar to 
>some of you. If I am going to do math, it will be things like Thom's 
>catastrope theory or Goodwin's Lotka-Volterra equations.

I do "do" math in precisely the sense to which you aspire--check my 1995
JPKE paper on that--and I am a critic of general equilibrium, especially
when done by non-neoclassical economists--check my 1998 JOPE paper for
that. And yet I still believe that, if you accept the premise that labor is
the only source of value, you will still have a transformation problem in a
dynamic model.

In other words, you are setting up a false intellectual opposition.

Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST