Re: Carchedi's TSS approach

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 16:52:11 EST

>At 23.55 19/02/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>"I do not agree with either the orthodox theory or
>>Screpanti's, but that is irrelevant.  It is the charge
>>of incoherence that -I would guess-  would attract the
>>'Damned Lies' bit."
>>Oh! I had not seen this one and I'm not sure who wrote
>>this. It could well be a good joke. Coherence is the
>>last thing one can find in the TSS approach to Marx or
>>for that matter anything. It is laughable that the
>>author of the above quote thinks that such a mild
>>criticism of an approach deserves to be called "dammed
>>lies". I think the TSS is not only incoherent but
>>simply nonsensical! ajit sinha
>My charge against Charchedi's TSS approach was twofold:
>Inconsistency: he uses Marx's reproduction conditions but then determines
>prices without respecting these conditions;

Ernesto, I don't understand the criticism. Marx analyzes simple and
expanded reproduction without ever determining prices that respected
those conditions: the schema are given in fixed values. The schema
are only a preliminary and provisional analysis of the difficulties
in the circulation of the capital. Why should a price theory have to
hold in conditions of simple reproduction (Bortkiewicz) or even
equilibrium (Winternitz)?

>dogmatism: Marx (as he interprets him) is always right.

Again there are indeed those of us who think Marx was more incomplete
than incorrect. There is nothing inherently dogmatic about this
position especially since Marx developed his theory through a careful
and detailed critique of the theorists who preceded him.

Yours, Rakesh

ps didn't Carchedi write a price with Werner de Haan about the
replacement of fixed capital in conditions of simple reproduction?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 00:00:01 EST