[ show plain text ]
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> I also don't see why Ajit would have been thinking about the TSV defintion
> of cost price in the context of our discussion of the transformation
> problem in Capital 3. Here the terms are clearly defined. Cost price is the
> basis on which profit is appropriated.
_____________________
My point was that in the literature on history of economic thought the term
"cost price" stands for a particular theory of value whose source is in adam
smith's additive theory of value. The term is used in this sense by malthus and
ricardo as well. This was a point I made as an aside, so that no confusion
should be added to the literature. The meaning of what you wanted to say can be
very well expressed by the term "cost". By "cost price" one conflates the two
concepts of cost and price, and the logical meaning of it, as the literature has
accepted, turns out to be a theory of price that says that the "price" is
determined by its "cost". The fact of the matter is that you did not respond to
any of my substantive criticism, and created such a storm on a non-issue to
simply divert the attention from my criticisms of your extremely contradictory
and week positions. Moreover, Fred has not responded to any of my criticisms yet
either. I have just received my RRPE now, and from whatever little I have read
of Fred's paper, I find the paper has even more serious problems than i thought.
But i'll first wait for fred's response. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT