At the risk of insulting Fred, might I suggest that one reason for the impasse with Ajit is over Fred's use of the word "proportional" to characterise the relationship between S and L in the formula: S = (m.L - V) which (correct me if I'mn wrong, but...) Fred agrees characterises his theory? Strictly speaking, this formula can only be "proportional" if V=0. If so, then for example, if m=2, S= 2*L for all values of S and L. If, however, V>0, then the "proportionality" this formula gives varies as S and L vary. For example, if m=2 and V=2 then S/L=0 for L=1, S/L=1 for L=1.5, S/L=2 for L=2, and so on. That is not proportionality in the strict meaning of the word. Cheers, Steve At 01:13 PM 10/2/00 +0530, you wrote: > > >Fred B. Moseley wrote: > >> This is a reply to Ajit's latest (3900). Ajit, thanks again. >> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote: >> >> > when a theory takes something as given, it either must take it as >> > empirically observable in principle or must have a sense that that >> > variable is determined in a theoretical space that lie outside the scope >> > of the particular theory. >> Fred: >> No, Ajit, that is YOUR understanding of the nature of an economic theory - >> that its givens must be explained OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the theory >> (i.e. that a theory is characterized by a strict division between >> exogenous and exogenous variables). >> >> But that is not the only kind of economic theory. I think that Marx's >> theory is a different kind of theory. I that think in Marx's theory, some >> variables are initially taken as given and then later explained within the >> theory. I have argued that constant capital and variable capital are >> variables of this nature. So is m. I think this is one of the senses in >> which Marx's logical method can be described as "positing the >> presuppositions". The presuppositions are initially taken as given, and >> then the presuppositions are posited. The variables that are initially >> taken as given (C, V, and m) are not determined outside the scope of the >> theory, but rather inside the theory. But not explained immediately, at >> the beginning stages of the theory. Rather the explanation of these >> initial givens comes at later stages of the theory. >> >> It seems to me that a theory that eventually explains its initial givens >> from within the theory is better than a theory that does not explain its >> initial givens at all. . >> >> So, Ajit, you cannot just decree, by methodological fiat, that the initial >> givens of a theory must be explained outside the scope of a theory. There >> are other types of theories that are permissible, and even seem to be >> preferable. It is entirely legitimate to take m as given in Marx's >> theory. > >______________________ > >Fred, your statement that "Marx's logical method can be described as "positing the >presuppositions". The presuppositions are initially taken as given, and >then the presuppositions are posited" makes absolutely no sense. What you take as >given or what you posit are pretty much the same thing. So i'm really not sure what >is your understanding of "Marx's logical method". In any case, it seems to me that >you are trying to make some kind of dialectical argument here. You see, in Hegel's >dialectical logic what is posited or presupposed is later revealed as a result or >conclusion of the logic because his logic is both totalizing and circular. Hegel >cannot leave anything outside, given the totalizing nature of his logic, and the >object of his mediation is mediation itself. Nothing of this sort is the issue in >debate with us. > >In anycase, your statement that "I that think in Marx's theory, some >variables are initially taken as given and then later explained within the >theory. I have argued that constant capital and variable capital are >variables of this nature. So is m." has been proven wrong by me repeatedly. In your >theory you are unable to explain m either from within the theory or outside of it. >All you have to say is that Marx assumes it to be given. But that is not what >anybody, even the Hegelians, understand by "and then later explained within the >theory". So you do not have an explanation of what your theory was supposed to >explain. And that is the problem, which you don't seem to recognize. >_____________________ > >> >> Ajit: >> > But your "m" is simply unknowable, though all >> > your other quantitative variables depend upon its value. And this is not >> > legitimate by the standard o any theory I know of. >> Fred: >> Several points in response: >> >> 1. I did not say that m is in principle unknowable. Only that we don't >> yet have a theory of m. Actually, we have some ideas about how m is >> determined with commodity money (as the price of production of gold), but >> we have less idea about how m is determined with paper money. But I think >> that such a theory of m with paper money can and should be developed. > >_____________________________ > >If you "don't yet have a theory of m" now, then you don't have a theory of anything >that depends on m now either. Whether you will have a theory of something in future >is not what we are debating. As far as "Actually, we have some ideas about how m is >determined with commodity money (as the price of production of gold)" is concerned, >as i had already shown many posts earlier, which you cut off and never responded to, >that in this case you will need to know the whole of Sraffa's basic input-output >system to even get that. And so your whole argument that Marx does not take physical >input-output system as given would collapse. Please read through all my criticisms >carefully. If you care to let all my criticisms stand in their context and respond >to them all as i do with yours, we will not have to go round and round in such >frustrating circles. >_________________________ > >> >> Fred: >> 2. Even though the absolute magnitudes of the monetary variables depend >> on m, the ratios among the monetary variables do not depend on m. And the >> ratios (e.g. the rate of surplus-value, the rate of profit, etc.) are what >> is important for Marx's theory. More on this point below. > >_______________________ > >This has been proven wrong by me, Gil, and Paul C. It involves elementary >mathematics. So I don't understand why you keep repeating something that has been >proven to be false. >_______________ > >> Fred: >> >> 3. In addition, as I have emphasized in previous posts, there are the >> other important qualitative conclusions of Marx's theory which also do not >> depend on the determination of m, e.g. the conflict over the working >> day. Whatever determines m, it remains true that a longer working day >> will produce more money new-value than a shorter working day. Hence, it >> follows from the labor theory of value that there is an inherent conflict >> in capitalism over the length of the working day. It is not necessary to >> provide a complete explanation of the determination of m in order to >> conclude from the labor theory of value that there is a conflict over the >> working day. More on this point below also. > >____________________________ > >Your theory, which is unable to walk one step, has not explained any of these >phenomena. And it cannot, because it first needs to stand up and walk before it >could explain such things on its basis. My criticism is that your theory is a >stillborn theory. It cannot explain anything. As far as Marx's theory is concerned, >of course those phenomena are explained by Marx, even Steedman would not dispute >that. But then your theory is not Marx's theory, you just like to repeatedly claim >so. But that has no meaning in itself. >_________________________ > >> >> Fred: >> In sum, Marx's theory does not become a "theory of nothing" because it >> does not explain the determination of m. Marx's theory still provides an >> explanation of important phenomena, even without the full determination of >> m. > >_________________ > >It's true with Marx but not with your theory or your interpretation of Marx. >______________ > >> >> Ajit: >> > Your statement that "If m changes, then all the monetary >> > variables change proportionally, so that the ratios among these monetary >> > magnitudes remain the same." is not correct has been proven by me repeatedly >> > mathematically, as well as by Gil and Paul C. All you have to do is to check >> > your own equations and you will know that this claim of yours is falls. >> Fred: >> Ajit, I don't think you have "proven" even a single time that my statement >> is incorrect. I don't remember Gil and Paul C. commenting on this >> particular point either; they can speak for themselves. > >_____________________ > >I think it is absolutely legitimate on my part to feel so frustrated. Either you are >not reading my responses or you simply don't care. In the end I'll have to stop >repeating, and so you will have the last word! So this is the last time I'm going to >prove to you that this statement of yours, which is what gives you a sense that you >have got a theory, is simply wrong. Let me quote from your earlier post first: > >"Let my put it another way: As I have summarized several times, the basic >> conclusion of Marx's theory of surplus-value is that the magnitude of >> surplus-value (or dM) is PROPORTIONAL to the quantity of surplus >> labor-time, with m as the FACTOR OF PROPORTIONALITY; i.e. >> >> S = m Ls >> >> = m (L - Ln) >> >> where Ln = V / m." > >Now, as you know, in your formulation, in the above three equations L, V, and >supposedly the given "m" are known. So put the value of Ln in your equation 2. It >gives you, >S = m(L - V/m). This implies that S = (m.L - V). And so from our elementary >mathematics we know that S is not proportional to m. What is so difficult about >this? > >_________________________ > >> Fred: >> >> I have argued that MARX ASSUMED that a change of m will change all the >> monetary variables proportionally, from which it follows (as a matter of >> mathematical logic) that the ratios among the monetary variables (the rate >> of surplus-value, etc.) will not change. I even typed out several >> passages in which Marx explicitly stated both this assumption (a change of >> m will change all the monetary variables proportionally) and the >> conclusion derived from it (the ratios among the monetary variables will >> not change). You have not responded to these passages. Instead you >> repeat empty assertions. >> >> In order to "prove" that my statement is incorrect, you have to show >> either: (1) that Marx did not assume that a change of m will change all >> the monetary variables proportionally; or (2) that the conclusion (the >> ratios among the monetary variables will not change) does not follow. > >____________________________ > >I don't have to "prove" what Marx assumes or not, because Marx is not in the dock >here. As far as your theory or your interpretation of Marx is concerned, you simply >cannot "*assume*" that "that a change of m will change all the monetary variables >proportionally" since, as I have demonstrated above, the mathematical formulation of >your theory contradicts this so-called assumption. So if you think that Marx did >assume this, then your interpretation must be wrong because it contradicts Marx's >fundamental assumption. >___________________________ > >> Fred: >> So far, you have done neither. Therefore, you have proved nothing about >> my statement, despite your repeated assertions. > >____________________ > >Assertions are repeated by you, as anybody can see. I have been repeatedly proving >that your assertions are meaningless. >___________________ > >> >> >> > > Fred: >> > >> > > In addition, other conclusions that do not >> > > have to do with quantitative magnitudes, but rather with important >> > > qualitative phenomena of capitalist economies (e.g. conflicts over the >> > > working day and the intensity of labor, inherent technological change, >> > > etc.) also do not require a theory of the determination of m. >> > >> > _______________________ >> > Ajit: >> > These issues are not under dispute. Our debate is about your interpretation of >> > Marx's transformation problem. And as you yourself now accept that these >> > broader issues simply do not depend upon your 'monetary interpretation', you >> > have yet again confirmed Steedman critique. >> Fred: >> Ajit, you are raising a separate question here. The question of the last >> several posts has been: whether the lack of a determination of m renders >> my interpretation of Marx's theory a "theory of nothing". I argue, to the >> contrary, that Marx's theory can still explain these phenomena, even >> without a full determination of m. You have not disputed this point, but >> instead you raise a separate issue - that it is possible to explain these >> phenomena by another theory. But the fact that it might be possible to >> explain these phenomena by another theory does not alter the fact that >> these phenomena can be explained by Marx's theory, without a full >> determination of m, which is the point under dispute in the present >> discussion. > >_____________________ > >I have already taken care of this point above. A stillborn theory cannot explain >anything. >____________________ > >> Fred: >> So I conclude that it is entirely legitimate to take m as given in Marx's >> theory. Ajit has provided NO convincing reason why this logical procedure >> is not legitimate. > >____________________ > >If you were carefully reading my responses, you wouldn't say this, particularly with >a CAPITAL NO. Cheers, ajit sinha > >> >> >> Comradely, >> Fred > > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EST