[OPE-L:4233] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Oct 22 2000 - 23:27:21 EDT

re Steve's 4228

>Oh well, one last time then.

So Steve you have given up on trying to communicate to the 
intelligent non economist if I may indulge myself.   Here I am 
discussing the logical criticism of Marx at the level you present it 
in your book and now you respond to me with this. Truly remarkable. 
Why not stand by your book which is at the level of Allin's simple 
reproduction transformation exercise.

>Firstly, you were wrong to dismiss linear algebra.

OK, it's more than an optimisation technique. I look forward to learning why.

>  As it happens, linear
>algebra is an important tool in the analysis of dynamic systems. This is
>because the stability properties of equilibria of a dynamic system are
>determined by the linear component of the Taylor expansion of the system.
>If you really want to do dynamics--rather than simply propose numerical
>examples which are "almost just right", then you will need linear algebra
>(at least to second year level) as well as calculus and differential

But you had simple numerical examples of what's wrong in Marx; then I 
question the assumptions in the example, the relevance of any 
conclusions which can be drawn from such equilibrium or simple 
reproduction examples, and you no longer want to communicate in a way 
I can understand you.

Do me a favor since your Marx chapter is no longer on your website. 
Please forward to me your criticism of Marx's transformation error in 
your new book. . Then I will give you my reply. Then you can tell me 
why it's off base because the eigenvalues won't work out for the 
dynamic model in terms of which I am implicitly criticizing you.


Thanks, Rakesh

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