On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Re Steve's 4189 > > >A more technical statement of my frustration with your approach is that you > >appeal to a system which, if stated in the form of dynamic equations, would > >have more unknowns than equations. I agree with Steve: the problem I have with your mode of argument is not that you're dodging empirical refutation, but that you're dodging theoretical refutation, by introducing complicating assumptions as the argument goes along so that your opponent (e.g. me) is unable to pin you down to any particular proposition and is eventually forced to give up. -------------------- Allin, You are kidding, right? I introduced one (count it: ONE) complicating. albeit utterly realistic, assumption to your non complex but utterly unrealistic simple reproduction tableau--that productivity would be 5% greater in this period than in the last. I followed out the logic of this one UTTERLY REALISTIC modification to your scheme. Then I showed that this implied completely realistic interperiodic changes in prices of production, s/v, total value/price even if we kept r constant. I then suggested that the ability to demonstrate such realistic change should, if anything, count in favor of Marx's transformation procedure which necessarily implies all variables must be time subscripted. (If we don't keep r constant, then the other variables change less.) How this is not a realistic time path for the system you have not explained. Why the completely unrealistic, anachronistic system of simple reproduction should be preferred over this you have not explained. How someone as smart as you has not been able to keep track of the original situation, i.e. simple reproduction, is truly beyond me as I only suggested one simple, reasonable change and then examined its consequences. My ideas are difficult only insofar as you don't want to follow them. Anybody with an 8th grade education in math could understand what I did to your simple reproduction scheme. _______________ Allin wrote: As regards the transformation, I have this diagnosis. One coherent view of the issue is that stemming from Bortkiewicz. _____________ I reply: This is not coherent. The average rate of profit should have no place in simple reproduction. See my response to Paul C. ___________________ Allin wrote: There is a clear argument showing that Marx's two equalities cannot both be sustained. This argument is usually developed in relation to a simple tableau showing simple reproduction. Now it would be weird and wonderful if one could show that while Marx's two equalities don't hold in *that* case, they nonetheless *do* hold in the case of extended reproduction with ongoing technical change. ________________ I reply: They do, you are doubtless an unmeasurably better economic model builder than I; so go ahead and construct such a case if you don't like how I modified your original situation. Don't be scared; see where it leads you. ______________________ Allin wrote: I don't believe you've shown anything of the sort. ________________ I reply: So are you not denying that someone smarter than me could do such a thing? _________________ Allin wrote: You've just complexified the example to the point where we lose track of the original situation we're trying to transform, then "anything goes". ____________________ I reply: Allowing for interperiodic increases in labor productivity is overcomplexification? You cannot seriously believe this. _____________________ Allin wrote: You've said several times that some further adjustment is called for due to the fact that Marx's inputs are assumed to be priced at value, but you refuse to follow out the logic of that admission. Well then, consider the alternative. _______________ I reply: Have you yet even tried to meet my challenge that Marx never called for the inputs to be transformed into the same prices of production as the outputs? Once you remove that constraint to a solution--exactly because labor productivity is increasing interperiodically so unit values cannot be constant--then the transformation problem disappears, while all the variables must necessarily be time subscripted. It's truly that simple. I am confident that you understand exactly what I am saying. All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST