In OPE-L 4218, Steve Keen wrote "So my comment about being open-dimensional does not relate to this [n extra degrees of freedom because two sets of prices are determined] at all." Ok, but if it doesn't relate to that, then to what does it relate? If you were just criticizing Rakesh, you shouldn't have portrayed it as a critique of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory. Steve also wrote: : I said two things too--either you'd have to keep the system open : dimensional to avoid a TP, or if you did close it, you would get the TP in : a dynamic guise if you insisted on the premise that labor is the only : source of value, and hence of profit. Yes, but I responded to this, and you haven't addressed my response. It was: : >There is no flaw, no "transformation problem," even in the static case, : >once one heeds Marx's warning not to "go wrong" by equating the value of : >capital with the value of the means of production and labor-power. Lots : >of people, on and off this list, by no means all proponents of the TSS : >interpretation, will tell you that. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST