Steve Keen wrote: > Thanks Fred, > > Yes it is proportionality in the strict sense of the word, but it is no > longer Marx's theory in the strict sense of the word. _________________ No it is not proportional Setve! Fred is entirely wrong. And he is wrong because he does his mathematics upside down. He first "defines" S = m.Ls (here m is supposed to be "given" but unknown, and Ls is definitely an unknown, otherwise he will not need his other two equations. And from this he keeps claiming that his S is proportional to Ls with the proportionality factor m). Now since his Ls is unknown, he defines Ls as Ls = (L - Ln), now in this equation L is supposed to be known but Ln is still unknown. Therefore, he goes for his third equation where Ln is defined as Ln = V/m, where V is supposed to be known and m is the "given unknown". So ultimately what his S turns out to be? S = (m.L - V), as you have correctly put in your later part of the post as "Surplus is an unobservable number times L, minus workers' wages?" Therefore, contrary to Fred's claim S is not proportional to anything with the proportionality factor m. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > This is where I believe the divide arises between myself, Ajit, Gil et al > on one broadly defined side of this debate (possibly including Allin & Paul > on this issue), and yourself. Both sides are saying that Marx's theory as > he wrote it can't be sustained, in that strict proportionality between > surplus value and necessary labor can't be correct. > > The side I'm on in various ways says that therefore the labor theory of > value must be erroneous--myself by saying that it's contradicted by Marx's > own logic, Ajit & Gil by supporting Sraffa's input-output critique, Allin & > Paul by saying that as an empirical issue, there's a reasonable but not > strict correspondence and that's OK for research. > > You are saying that so long as we bring in an unobservable modifier m, then > we can make S proportional to V when this modifier is part of the equation. > Well, mathematically, perhaps; but what does this do to the simple Marxian > clarion call that all surplus arises from labor (with which I don't agree, > of course, but it's a very large part of why people are initially attracted > to Marx)? Surplus is an unobservable number times L, minus workers' wages? > > Any potential recruits who heard that argument at a first meeting with the > IS would wobble out of the meeting hall and go looking for a less confusing > belief system. > > This of itself doesn't concern me too greatly, but it's a sign of the > divide which exists between the simple message which recruits people to an > initial interest in Marx, and the complex footwork needed to sustain a > comparable message once you look very closely at the argument. > > The point which does concern me is that, because of this logical conundrum, > Marxian economics hasn't even got out of the starting blocks yet 130 years > after Charlie first penned Das Kapital. We may be about to enter > capitalism's biggest crisis since the Great Depression, and yet rather than > debating this, the premiere minds in Marxian economics are still debating > how to derive prices from values. > > Rather than being a tool which can "lay bare the workings of the capitalist > system", this looks more like a poorly designed tool which has turned its > advocates into a religious sect a la Life of Brian, rather than, as Marx > and Engels saw themselves, intellectual leaders of the working class. > > Cheers, > Steve > At 12:21 PM 10/5/2000 -0400, you wrote: > > > >This is a response to Steve K's (938). Steve, thanks for your several > >recent posts, which I have read and thought about and hope to have the > >time to reply soon. > > > > > >On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > > >Steve, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that > >"S is proportional to L". Rather, I am saying that "S is proportional to > >Ls" (S = m Ls), where Ls = (L - Ln), and Ln = V/m. > > > >On the basis of these definitions, and using your example, S is indeed > >proportional to Ls, with m as the factor of proportionality. This can be > >seen from the following table, using your example: > > > >m L V S Ln Ls S/Ls > > > >2 1.5 2 1 1 0.5 2 > > > >2 2 2 2 1 1 2 > > > > > >Is not this proportionality "in the strict meaning of the word"? > > > > > >Comradely, > >Fred > > > > > >P.S. By the way, why do you think that I would be insulted by your > >post? You present a clear logical criticism, without gratuitous > >insults. I appreciate your post. > > > > > 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 - 00:00:08 EST