I'm saying nothing of the sort, Rakesh! >I think what Steve is saying is that Marx's value theory has to be >generalized to the case of general equilibrium if his fellow >economists are going to take it seriously (even if the case of >general equilibrium can in no conceivable way be generalized to the >case of capitalism). God you are a frustrating person to communicate with. I have sent you my critique of Steedman: if you honestly think, after reading it, that I require propositions to be put in a general equilibrium framework, then there's simply no point in me trying to explain any aspect of my analysis to you. My argument has been that: (a) the TSS approach is correct to argue that Marx's analysis was dynamic, and that therefore to accurately test whether there is a transformation problem, Marx's model would have to be put in complete dynamic form; (b) I am quite confident that, if that were done, there would be a transformation problem in this dynamic guise, just as one is found using a simultaneist approach; (c) I don't bother doing this myself because I argue that the proposition that labour is the only source of value, which is central to TSS (though, as I note in my previous post, I think TSS actually contradicts itself here), is actually not a valid proposition in terms of Marx's theory of value; (d) If TSSers genuinely want to promote their theory, it is behoven upon them to fully specify what they believe to be Marx's dynamic model. Numerical examples--especially ones where you can't get the numbers to quite match up!--simply aren't good enough. Steve 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 - 00:00:12 EST