On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Drewk wrote: > Paul also wrote: "I notice that Fred is continuing to put Andrew > on the spot ...." > > I don't feel that Fred is putting me on the spot. He seems to be > trying to do so, to be sure, but, as I've noted, there's no point > in discussing the evidence from Part 2 if a satisfactory > alternative interpretation will not satisfy him. He has indicated > that it will not satisfy him. There's also the prior issue of > Fred's invention, out of thin air, of an evil twin profit rate. > > I say this is prior because the *significance* of the Part 2 > material depends on it. If we were to accept Fred's evil twin > profit rate argument, which of course we cannot, then an > unsuccessful alternative interpretation of the Part 2 evidence by > me would suggest that *the TSSI contradicts Marx's theory*. If, > however, we all acknowledge, as we all should, that Fred's > interpretation fails because there's no evidence for the evil twin > profit rate, and because his interpretation contradicts Marx's > theory once we repudiate Fred's blatant immunizing strategy, then > an unsuccessful alternative interpretation of the Part 2 evidence > by me would suggest that *Marx's theory itself is > self-contradictory*. > > There seems to me to be no point in entering into a discussion of > the Part 2 evidence unless and until this is settled. Andrew, who is immunizing now? What you say makes no sense because, as I have explained before my critique of your interpretation of prices of production DOES NOT DEPEND IN ANY WAY on my interpretation of the profit rate in Chapter 6. My critique of your interpretation is about WHY YOUR PRICES OF PRODUCTION CHANGE from period to period. Your prices of production change, even though productivity does not change, because you assume that input prices are not equal to output prices (which requires prices of production to change in the next period in order to equalize rates of profit). I know of no textual evidence in all of Marx's manuscripts to support this interpretation. Either the textual evidence exists or it doesn't. This has nothing to do with my interpretation of the rate of profit in Chapter 6. My interpretation of the rate of profit in Chapter 6 has to do with whether or not changing market prices is another possible cause of changes in prices of production in Marx's theory (besides changes in productivity). But this point is completely irrelevant to my critique of your interpretation, because your interpretation explicitly abstracts from market prices. Even if changing market prices were another possible cause of changes in prices of production, this would not explain why your prices of production change. To repeat: my critique has to do with why your prices of production change (because input prices not equal to output prices), and the complete lack of any textual evidence to support this interpretation. This has nothing to do with the rate of profit in Chapter 6. Andrew, why not stop "immunizing" behind the irrelevant issue of the rate of profit in Chapter 6, and present your interpretation of the passage in Chapter 12 (and other similar passages), and, more importantly, present some textual evidence to support your interpretation that prices of production change due to input prices not being equal to input prices? Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST