[OPE-L:4234] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of Volume III of Capital

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Mon Oct 23 2000 - 04:09:19 EDT

OK Rakesh, I'll send you the present chapter as an attachment later.

My criticism of the labor theory of value in that chapter has nothing to do
with eigenvalues, etc., as it happens. In the chapter repeat the Steedman
critique, detail Bose's neglected critique, and then cover my own, which is
based on my reading of Marx's dialectical philosophy. Since that leads me
to reject the premise that labor is the only source of surplus value, the
whole transformation problem debate--from T-B on to TSS--is an irrelevance
for me.

At 20:27 22/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>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
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 - 00:00:11 EST