[OPE-L] TSSI Magic

From: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
Date: Mon Oct 29 2007 - 09:06:34 EDT

A short reply to Alan Freeman:

> The TSSI refutation of the Okishio theorem is an argument about logic:
> whether Marx's reasoning is logically inconsistent as alleged, or not,
> as TSSI proves.

Freeman uses TSSI Magic above. He claims that "Marx's reasoning" has been
proved to be logically consistent but - like the 'magic' employed by
magicians - there is a slight of hand.

Now you see the Okishio Theorem.
Now you see Marx's reasoning.
The Okishio Theorem has been refuted!

The deception - which we know is purposeful since it has been called to
their attention on many occasions previously - is what they claim to be
Marx's reasoning is not.

The same kind of magic is employed by K-M in their article on the TP.
It seems to be magic indeed until you realize that their magic is only
accomplished through the trick of assuming that prices of production in
period analysis in Marx's theory can change for reasons other than those
specifically identified by Marx.  This magic requires one to suspend logic
and forget that Marx used the word 'only'.  It is, in fact, an attempted
*correction of Marx's theory which anyone can see for themselves if they
watch *closely* what has been done.  Like professional magicians, they are
only able to convince others (a gullible few) because the audience _wants_
to believe that there is real magic at play.

Then there is the V = 0 assumption.  With this assumption, TSSI authors
attempt feats of magic.  Yet, look closely at their formulas and the
meanings of those formulas where V = 0.

Q. What is the TSSI rate of surplus value where V = 0?
A: 0, of course (unless you believe that surplus value can be created in a
system without wage-labor).

Q: What is the TSSI organic composition of capital where V = 0?
A: C / 0, of course.

Q: What is the TSSI rate of profit where V = 0?
A: S / C, of course. Thus, we have a theory purports to  "reclaim" Marx
which posits a condition where surplus value is created exclusively by
means of production!

Moreover, for TSSI formulas to be true it must hold for _all_ conditions
in which the formula claims that it _does_ hold for - and that includes v
= 0.  Hence, the fact that V can equal 0 in their formulas constitutes a
*refutation* of the TSSI.  The fact that they even use the V = 0
assumption at all shows that they have lost touch with the real subject
matter: they act like they live in a magical world where anything is
possible rather than in capitalism.  Like some magicians they have thus
forgotten that what they performing is magic and come to believe
themselves in the supernatural.  It is thus entirely fitting that we
should be discussing the TSSI on the eve of Halloween.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT