[OPE-L:3982] Re: Re: The Transformation Problem 2

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:05:29 EDT

Andrew_Kliman wrote:

> Ajit Sinha asserted (falsely) in OPE-L 3919 that
> "it can be proven that positive profit is possible if and only if there
> is  positive  surplus  value  (see Wolfstetter, 1973;  Morishima,
> 1973,  Morishima  and  Catephores, 1978)."
> This statement is just plain false.  What he says can be proven has NOT
> been proven and CANNOT be proven.  As I have stated and demonstrated
> numerous times (see most recently OPE-L 3616), this alleged Fundamental
> "Marxian" Theorem of the simultaneists has been disproved.
> No one has been able to refute the disproof.
> A forthcoming paper (by me) in _Capital and Class_, "Simultaneous
> Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of Profit," will make the disproof
> known to the world at large.
> I would like to know what Ajit Sinha intends to do to correct his
> error.
> Andrew Kliman


About a couple of months ago in response to my comments on something Mr.
Kliman had written on the ope-l, this was the response I got:

"Regarding Sinha's attack on Marx
Since he is attacking the author of the example (Marx), not me, I
see no
need to respond.  According to the all-knowing Sinha, Marx's
example is
"mathematical nonsense," "meaningless," and "nonsensical."  I feel

honored to be included in Marx's company in this way.  As referee
on the
_Review of Radical Political Economics_, Sinha has used these and
terms to dismiss my work, and the TSS interpretation of Marx's
theory, in order to justify his and his colleagues' attempts to
it and block its publication.  If he wants to debate me,
*publicly* and
*in print*, about the meaning and significance of Marx's work, I
ready.  Otherwise I have nothing to say to him." Andrew Kliman

This was, of course, not considered flaming by Jerry. Do I have to say
anything more?
Cheers, ajit sinha

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