Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Sun Mar 25 2007 - 15:43:24 EDT

I am unsure as to why people on this list continue to
expend so much effort discussing the transformation problem.

Since the list started more than 10 years ago it has been
an abiding topic of concern. During that period Allin and
I have presented data both on the list and in published papers
that the whole debate is based on a counter-factual assumption
of profit equalisation, and that in fact the theory of prices
of production is no better at predicting market prices than is
the simple labour theory of value.

Despite this the debate continues, why?

If there had been a lively debate about our data with people
questioning it, and disputing it, I could understand the
continued argument about the transformation 'problem' but
other than by Andrew Kliman, our data has not been questioned
by list members.

Do those who continue debating the 'problem' not accept the
evidence we have published?
Do they have theoretical arguments as to why the 'problem' still
exists in the face of empirical evidence that it does not?
Or is it just inertia - this is what we were trained in, so we
will go on discussing it until we retire?

Paul Cockshott

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT