In 3975 Steve wrote: > >I do "do" math in precisely the sense to which you aspire--check my 1995 >JPKE paper on that--and I am a critic of general equilibrium, especially >when done by non-neoclassical economists--check my 1998 JOPE paper for >that. And yet I still believe that, if you accept the premise that labor is >the only source of value, you will still have a transformation problem in a >dynamic model. Why? Because the consumption of dead labor produces value too? You have already said that you have not done a critique of TSS (please see Giusanni's piece in the penultimate IJPE) and that your critique of the LTV, as it stands, is predicated on your prima facie preposterous claim that Marx should have understood the use of dead labor can equally be the source of new value as surplus labor (though of course Marx did say that this is the way things do in fact appear due to the equalisation of profit rates). For example you wrote earlier (3935): OK Andrew, I'll see if I can live up to that. I might add that it would be quite possible to characterise my approach to Marx as "temporal single system" too--since I don't see value and price categories as independent (let alone see value as superfluous), and all my mathematical work is in dynamics. Where I differ, of course, is on the premise that labor is the only source of value. Cheers, Steve _____________ So you have yet to prove that there is a transformation problem if the stricture input=output prices is passed and flushed with the morning's production, right? As you say above, it is at this point your belief (hope?) that the problem will remain. So as far as I can tell all you are doing here is bravely admitting that you have been inconsistent in allowing dynamics everywhere (e.g., Kaleckian price theory) but in Marx's transformation exercise. Which raises the question of why someone as smart as you would do such a thing. By the way, your desire to keep equilibrium analysis in one place and dynamics in another seems to have been shared by Schumpeter. Of course for him the fantasized power of equilibrium tendencies allowed him to write paeans to the heroism of the entrepreneur who could break through such equilibrium (stationary or moving) and thus deserve every cent of the superprofit he received. Have you heard about how Genetech's Craig Venter invented his autobiography in Schumpeterian terms? It was a truly astounding performance on an American show called Charlie Rose, an hour long commercial in the form of an interview by a man whose once limited intellecutal capabilities are in rapid descent. American discourse is littered with Schumpeterianisms, no more so than in the speeches of Big Daddy Al and the Republicans favorite speech writer George Gilder. All the best, Rakesh PhD Candidate UC Berkeley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST