[OPE-L:4210] Re: Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2000 - 18:28:18 EDT

I agree with Steve: the problem I have with your mode of
argument is not that you're dodging empirical refutation, but
that you're dodging theoretical refutation, by introducing
complicating assumptions as the argument goes along so that your
opponent (e.g. me) is unable to pin you down to any particular
proposition and is eventually forced to give up.
Just to make the point as clear as possible.
 I introduced one assumption to your simple reproduction tableau--
  that productivity had increased 5% this period.

I then showed that this implied realistic, reasonable and small 
changes in unit prices of production from the inputs to the outputs. 

So I concluded that  Marx's transformation exercise only implies small
changes in unit prices of production over time.

So I left your tableau at t+1

You then countered that the two equalities would not hold at t+2. 
I then replied there would not be the same total value/price at t+2 as t+1.
That is, I simply said that as a result of a greater quantity of use values
at the end of the t period there would be more surplus labor absorbed in
the following period, so it was incorrect for you to extend
forward the same total value/price at t+1 to t+2.  That in doing so, you
were again refusing to time subscript the variables. 

You have said that you cannot keep up with my argument which is simply
based on drawing out the implications of rising interperiodic labor

Where exactly have I lost you?

All the best, Rakesh


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST