[OPE-L:5736] RE: Re: Re: de-bunking the de-bunk

From: Michael Williams (michael@williamsmj.worldonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 19:00:23 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Steve Keen
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:52 PM
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:5698] Re: Re: de-bunking the de-bunk
> ... So with that start, any theory
> which attempts to prove that the LTV is viable in any form
> doesn't even get
> to first base with me. It may be a LTV theory; but to me, it ain't Marx.

How about a 'value-theory of labour' Steve? Less enigmatically, it is not at
all clear to me that anything that could be called a labour theory of value
informs all, if any, VF approach.
> ... I've already cut off both legs (the belief that
> the LTV is Marx's fundamental theory of value, and the belief
> that the LTV
> is consistent with his theory of value).

Neither of these is my VF approach.

> Now VFT and TSS interpretations
> are threatening to bite me to death.

Who?, Where? Why wasn't I invited? Can I watch?

If you want to de-bunk any VF approach, Steve, it seems reasonable to ask
you to read at least a few key works first - rather than assuming that they
can be lumped in with a heterogeneous collection of other
interpretations/developments of Marx ... or?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT