[OPE-L:5101] Re: inverse transformation problem

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Fri Mar 02 2001 - 21:50:50 EST

Dear Alejandro:

I think you have missed the point of my inverse transformation 
problem. Yes, the inputs are already in prices; the cost prices are a 
given precondition. There is no reason to transform them.

But there is another error in Marx's tables. Marx's error is in the 
first table, in the determination of commodity values (Fred has 
understood my point well). The error is Marx's assumption that the 
value transferred from the machine to the final product is exactly 
matched or divulged by the visible flow price of the machine.

I agree with you that value and price are not dual systems. In my 
interpretation value is only activated in  by and through successful 
monetary ex-change. I think you are fighting another opponent in this 
last post.

Now as for Andrew K's departure from the list, I made an effort to 
ask him to come back. I do not deny that what you say about his 
reasons for leaving are at least partially true. But stubborness has 
something to do with it as well.

In my opinion, Andrew left because he is incapable of saying 
something as simple as this:

"Jerry, while I did not intend to threaten you, I am sorry if my 
words came across this way to you. It should however be obvious to 
you that I, not being  a big guy, could not have had intention of 
wrestling with you because even in your weakened condition, it's 
plain that you would have kicked my ass."

In solidarity, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT