In reply to OPE-L 4931. Yes, Fred, you wrote posts. You may even have written a post beyond the point at which I gave up out of frustration. I don't know. My computer crashed and I lost everything prior to OPE-L 1061, so I can't check this out now. I still think it is accurate to characterize your response to Alan Freeman's demonstration as a non-response. He showed that, when technology is changing, all variants of the *physicalist* prices of production and profit rate FAIL to constitute the center around which prices and the average profit rate fluctuate, despite the common claims to the contrary. Your "response" was that your prices of production and profit rate aren't "Sraffian," because your "logical method" is different. But Alan's demonstration referred to all variants of the physicalist prices of production and profit rate, yours included. That's one reason why I say your response was a non-response. You haven't confronted the demonstration and the fact that it does apply to your interpretation. The only ways to confront Alan's demonstration are either (1) to acknowledge that he is right, or (2) to come up with alternative NUMBERS, generated by means of your interpretation, in which market prices and associated profit rates do indeed fluctuate around your prices of production and equilibrium profit rate when technology is changing. "Logical method" has nothing to do with it. I know you think your prices of production and profit rate aren't physicalist, i.e., aren't functionally determined by physical quantities (input-output and real wage coefficients). What I mean by functionally determined is that, to each set of input-output and real wage coefficients, there corresponds a unique set of production prices and a unique uniform profit rate. Notice that this definition says NOTHING about physical quantities being "fundamental givens," initial data, or anything of the sort. But you're wrong about your prices of production and profit rate not being physicalist. Because you adhere to simultaneous valuation, defined here specifically as the postulate that (output) prices of production must equal the associated input prices, your prices of production and profit rate ARE functionally determined by physical quantities. I've demonstrated this numerous times in numerous ways. But you always find fault with the demonstration -- like the time you disqualified my use of an IDENTITY in an algebraic proof! Remember that? So I've asked you, time and again, to produce some NUMBERS of your own, NUMBERS in which your prices of production and/or equilibrium profit rate differ at different moments although the physical quantities are the same. (Is there any other way to DEMONSTRATE that your prices of production and profit rate are not functionally determined solely by physical quantities? I think not.) Notice that I have NOT asked you to *begin* with physical quantities as "fundamental givens," initial data, or anything of the sort. Start with your macro-monetary aggregates "determined in Volume I" for all I care. Just somehow, in the END, produce some NUMBERS for the unit prices and the physical quantities. If I'm not mistaken, I have asked for such NUMBERS for five years now. But you still have not produced any. That is the other reason, and the main reason, why I say your response to Alan's demonstration is a non-response. Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Dept. of Social Sciences Pace University Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA phone: (914) 773-3968 fax: (914) 773-3951 Home: 60 W. 76th St. #4E New York, NY 10023 USA "The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical. It is the critique that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST