In reply to OPE-L 4989. Well, Steve, not only have you not studied the TSSI well enough to be throwing stones, but you don't even know what you think you know. That is, what you assert out of ignorance is simply incorrect. I thought I had corrected your misunderstanding in the past, and that you responded that you would keep my points in mind when you finally got down to studying our work. But now you're coming back with the same incorrect stuff, apparently before you have studied our work. I'm referring to your comment that "if Marx's transformation of values into prices doesn't work in a system of simultaneous equations, then it won't work in a dynamic system as well." I'm also referring to your comment in OPE-L 4887: "By allowing technical change (and other factors as well), you can maintain a consistency between the claim that labor is the only source of value, and the price dynamics of a multi-sectoral economy. ... [This] brings in a level of arbitrariness which may appear to make the elaborated system (multi-commodity) consistent with its precept (labor as the only source of value), but which makes it impossible to have any structured analysis of any issue beyond that." Of course, when you wrote OPE-L 4887 -- only ONE WEEK ago -- you conceded that "this is a perspective garnered from reading OPE posts rather than the original Kliman/Freeman/etc papers, so I may be misrepresenting to some extent (I'll know for sure when I finally have time to read the originals)." For the record: First, the TSSI does not vindicate Marx's account of the transformation of values into prices of production by invoking some sort of perpetual disequilibrium. As we interpret his concepts, his transformation of values into prices DOES work in a system of simultaneous equations. Second, we do not refute the Okishio theorem, and thereby vindicate the logical coherence of Marx's law of the tendential fall in the profit rate, by invoking unequal profit rates across sectors. Marx's logic succeeds, and the Okishio theorem fails, even when profit rates are always and everywhere equal. You don't need to take my word for it. In the latest volume of _Research in Political Economy_, Duncan Foley writes (p. 282): "I understand Freeman and Kliman to be arguing that Okishio's theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility." 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