Andrew Kliman's reply

From: rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 12:37:36 EDT

My reply is submitted after Kliman's  post.

From: "Drewk" <>
To: <>, <>
Cc: <>
Subject: RE: Question for David Laibman re TSS critique
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:26:59 -0400

Please stop spamming me.

What is said here about v = 0 is a plain falsehood.  TSSI
proponents have time and again demonstrated that the profit rate
can fall, under conditions in which the Okishio theorem says it
cannot, when wages are POSITIVE.  See, e.g., my "A Value-theoretic
Critique ..." in _Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics_, 1996 or,
even earlier, my "The Profit Rate Under Continuous Technological

WE ARE DUE A HUGE APOLOGY, and a correction of the historical

Laibman did not show what is claimed here.  See the disproof in
Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman, "Rejoinder to Duncan Foley and
David Laibman," in _Research in Political Economy_ vol. 18, 2000,
p. 292.

Again, I want the record to be corrected.

I ask that this reply be sent to all persons and lists who
received the original message.

The struggle against "Marxian economics" continues.

1. I did not spam Kliman. I wanted him to be informed that I had
commented on his work so that he may himself submit a reply. Which he did.

2. What I said about the TSS models explicitly used in the exchanges
with Foley and Laibman in Research in Political Economy is not a plain
falsehood; the assumption that workers live on air is in fact made,
especially in the model on which Laibman himself comments. Kliman refers
to other, earlier papers in which this assumption is not made. I was not
commenting on those papers.

3. No apology will be issued since Kliman has not shown what I wrote was
a plain falsehood, much less written in any kind of bad faith.

4. Kliman does not clarify exactly which one of Laibman's claims is
disproved on page 292. If Kliman or Alan Freeman has time, I would be
interested in an elaboration.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT