[OPE-L:4200] Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Andrew_Kliman (Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2000 - 12:36:40 EDT

A question concerning Steve Keen's OPE-L 4189.

You referred to "a system which, if stated in the form of dynamic
equations, would have more unknowns than equations. In such a system,
any[] argument is possible--even, for example, that capital is the only
source of value and labour only maintains its value input."

My question is, this.  Don't such arguments (when they are also stated in
the form of dynamic equations) supply the missing equations?  I don't see
the mathematical problem.  I realize you disagree with this theory,
Steve, but isn't that a different matter?

P.S.  I agree with you on the need for theories and interpretations to be
susceptible of empirical disconfirmation (though I also think confirming
evidence can sometimes be meaningful; it is a matter of probabilities).
I also agree with you about the importance of use-value in Marx's work,
even including the proposition that it is by virtue of the consumption of
its use-value that labor-power adds new value.

Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST