**Next message:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Previous message:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4977] Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**In reply to:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4977] Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Next in thread:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Reply:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> >I suggested that Marx's schemes might serve for you as a BASIS, rather >than itself PROOF, for solving the problem of a faster growth of Dept. I >over II. You reply "both". But when you get to the scheme itself, you >yourself have to interpret the role of the first period (you need to >engage in " 'stretching out'... Marx's example"). Whether right or wrong >is not the point. The point is that it is NOT in Marx himself. It >becomes an interpretation. I suspect you and Grossman supporter will >chime in that this interpretation is right. Yet that is using the schemes >as a BASIS for a proof, not the proof itself, i.e., you must introduce an >additional material to make your case. Paul Z, As I understand one element of Grossman's and Mattick Sr's argument (I typed out the latter's translation of the former's analysis previously): the reproduction schema cannot be used to prove the necessity of underconsumptionism because after all the exchanges in the schema are conducted in terms of values, not prices of production. Yours, Rakesh

**Next message:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Previous message:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4977] Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**In reply to:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4977] Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Next in thread:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Reply:**Paul Zarembka: "[OPE-L:4979] Re: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof""**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST
*