On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > Fred, My critique of your interpretation should have sent you to square one. So > why not work on that, rather than waste time on such non-issues? But, Ajit, I have answered every one of your criticisms, including the last one we discussed - your empiricist criticism that m must be observable in order to be taken as given, which I answered in (3970) and to which you have not yet responded. (Gil seems to agree with me on this point that a variable need not be observable in order to be taken as given.) The same thing is true of all your other criticisms: they have been answered. If you wish to name other criticisms, I will be happy to give you the post numbers in which they were answered and to which you have not responded. > There is no > fundamental difference between Bortkiewcz and Dickerson's positions. Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether the variables determined in Volume 1 are labor-time quantities or money quantities? But what is Marx's theory in Volume 1 about? What are the main questions addressed? Isn't the analytical framework of Marx's theory the circulation of capital (M - C ... P ... C' - M') and isn't this all about money and prices? > And both of > them have understood the problem well. Cheers, ajit sinha > I would say they understood the problem from the perspective of linear production theory, but they did not understand the LACK of a problem from the point of view of Marx's theory of the circulation of capital. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST