Re: [OPE-L] TSSI Magic

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Oct 29 2007 - 09:14:01 EDT

I offer my apology to the list: I had intended to send this post from
another of my addresses.  It can be confusing when different
addresses use the same email system and hence visually look the
same.  In any event,  the comments expressed in this post were
those of an individual subscriber.
In solidarity, Jerry

PS: my pratt account, beginning last Friday changed some features
and the consequence of this is that lines are being chopped-up.
Sorry about that. Hopefully, I'll find a solution to this soon.

> 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
> magicians - there is a slight of hand.
Now you see the Okishio Theorem.
> Now you see Marx's reasoning.

> Voila!
> 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
> 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