Re: Carchedi's TSS approach

From: Ernesto Screpanti (screpanti@UNISI.IT)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 03:05:29 EST

At 13.52 06/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>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)?

A theory of market prices need not require these conditions to hold. A
theory of production prices does. On the other hand, Carchedi assumes that
the structure of demand is such that no realization problems exist and  the
rate of profit is uniform. This implies that the system is in reproduction
equilibrium. Then Carchedi "transforms" his "values" into his "prices" in
such a way that this condition does not hold.

>>dogmatism: Marx (as he interprets him) is always right.
>Again there are indeed those of us who think Marx was more incomplete
>than incorrect.

"More" means that you believe he is at least a little incorrect? In what?

>There is nothing inherently dogmatic about this

Of course.

>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