[OPE-L:4474] Re: Sport

Ajit Sinh (ecas@cc.newcastle.edu.au)
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 02:00:33 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

At 02:59 PM 3/20/97 -0800, Alan Freeman wrote:
>Ajit [4419] addresses Andrew thus:"do you find yourself so much on the
>Hello Ajit. What a welcome change from salon politeness! I hope no-one
tries to
>silence you. Please continue.
>Your analogy might come from many sports. From boxing, perhaps, or tennis?
>Let me charitably assume cricket, where many fine shots come off the back
>and play it with a straight bat. I ask three questions.

Your Charitable analogy is the correct one. I was referring to cricket, may
be I've been watching Australia vs South Africa test series a bit too much.
And I expected some decent looking backfoot stroke too. But I must say, he
just gave an easy snick straight to the wicketkeeper.
>In [4402] referring to Andrew Kliman and Ted McGlone, you say the argument
>"input prices are equivalent to value and the divergence between value and
>occur only in the outputs" is "the fundamental proposition crucial to their
>But this is also either asserted or approved by, for example, Fred, Bruce,
and if
>I understand him right, Duncan. Indeed, it is what I understand the
>approach to be. This may not prove it right, but maybe proves it needs a

You will have to elaborate your point a bit for me to answer. And since I
have to run soon, and I only write from my office, it gives me some time too.
>I am curious if this engagement is a debate or a vendetta. I have no
objections to
>vendettas but I need to know which weapons to reach for.

No vendetta. I and Andrew have known each other for years. I know he can
take it, that's why i dished it out.
>So my first question: Do you consider this wrong only from the pens of
Andrew Kliman
>and Ted McGlone? Or is it wrong as a general theoretical proposition? If
the latter,
>it would help if you could explain the errors of the others who share the
view you
>criticise - above all Fred, in whose support you opened your criticism of

No, I think others such as Carchedi, Carchedi and Haan, etc. all make
similar mistakes. Right now, I'm too busy with some of the papers I'm
working on. When I get some free time, I could produce my criticisms of
Carchedi etc. as well.
>in [4435] you state "you simply ASSUME that the value of money is equal to one"
>I would be grateful if you could explain what other assumption might
>the conclusions in question.

Whether you assume one or five, it doesn't matter. It remains arbitrary. My
point is that K-M have no way of determining value, except giving it
arbitrary numbers and then play with them.
>For example, it does not seem to me that the conclusions would be markedly
>if the value of money were, shall we say, two. Could you perhaps identify
>magnitude, or concept, of the value of money confirms Okishio and rejects KM?

Well, I guess, I already answered it above.
>I agree that Sraffa was a great Marxist. I am unconvinced only that Marx
was a great
>Sraffian. What is your view?

I'm gonna send you my paper. The paper actually does not talk about Sraffa.
However, it establishes Marx as surplus approach economist. Cheers, ajit sinha