[OPE-L:4582] Four-cornered triangle

Alan Freema (a.freeman@greenwich.ac.uk)
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:54:29 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

I abbreviated. I said [4562] Ajit and myself agreed on nothing.
In fact I think, though I could be corrected by Ajit, that the
discussion establishes we agree on something absolutely vital:

We agree that the value of goods are given prior to sale.

At a cursory reading Iwao [4564] agrees, also Alejandro [4563].

This is excellent because it gives a common standpoint from which
to assess disagreements. I always think the rational method of
starting from agreement in order to assess disagreements, is a
better way of discussing than the doctrinal method of starting
from disagreements to establish agreement.

Moreover, can I clearly state that it is not an assumption and
unless I am convinced of something I overlooked or got wrong
(which is always possible), I have no intention of dropping it,
qualifying it, or modifying it.

Mike [4573] writes:

I (qua Value-for[m] theorist) do not agree, for reasons that I
should elaborate on, but do not have the time. (It is in
Reuten & Williams 1989) Indeed, some of what I thought was
entailed in a Single System approach is beginning to crumble
before my eyes ...

Jerry [4559] also disagrees.

Lest Mike's world crumbles further there are three things I
think we owe it to him to check:

(i) do Ajit, Paul, Allin and David agree that the value of
goods are given prior to sale?

(ii) what do Bruce and Fred think?

(iii)what does Duncan think?

I guess also that since I originally addressed my question to
Michael Perelman, it would be kind of nice to hear what he thinks.
I couldn't quite work it out from his responses so far. And actually,
I did start out two days ago to talk to him about it, though it
is interesting to hear what the neighbours think also.

Finally I think Mike's hesitancy about attributing his own
views to Marx is highly commendable. This is not at all meant as
a sarcastic remark. I think for our part we owe it to Mike to
discuss this view on its merits. If Marx is not claimed as
authority then there seems to me no basis for citing him as one.