Re: [OPE] Kliman's 'uncontested proof'

Hi Michael,

On 17 June 2010 02:14, you wrote:

> i'm sorry, but i don't understand the 'it should be clear' bit in your
> last paragraph.
>
> 1 ln P_i - ln C_i = ln V_i - ln C_i + e_i
> suppose that
> 2 ln C_i = ln V_i + f_i
> then
> 3 ln P_i - [ ln V_i + f_i] = ln V_i - [ ln V_i + f_i] + e_i
> or
> 4 ln P_i = ln V_i + f_i + e_i
>
> If C is constant, then
> 5 ln P_i = ln V_i + e_i
> otherwise, introducing this third variable reduces (but does not
> eliminate) the correlation between P and V. the extent of the
> reduction depends on the magnitude of f.
>
>
It seems eq. (4) is wrong. Re-arranging (3) puts you back in (5) regardless
of the statistical nature of C. Your equation (4) will look like this:

ln P_i - ln V_i - f_i = -f_i + e_i

and Kliman is saying that we must compute the correlation between both sides
of this equation and find a significant correlation or else initial
correlations were spurious in the first place. By your own example this
deduction does not hold because it depends on the statistical properties of
f.

As an illustration, suppose C_i = a*V_i, where a is a constant. Then if
\rho( P, V ) is high it does not follow that

\rho( P/C, V/C ) = \rho( [1+flow profit rate] , 1/a )

is significant. In fact it is zero.

What Kliman legitimately seems to want is to recover the *unit* prices and
labour-values. But his procedure is mistaken and 'deflation by cost' is
completely wrong because it removes the real-cost structure through which
the law of value operates.

//Dave Z

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Jun 17 04:50:22 2010