Dear Alejandro: I think you have missed the point of my inverse transformation problem. Yes, the inputs are already in prices; the cost prices are a given precondition. There is no reason to transform them. But there is another error in Marx's tables. Marx's error is in the first table, in the determination of commodity values (Fred has understood my point well). The error is Marx's assumption that the value transferred from the machine to the final product is exactly matched or divulged by the visible flow price of the machine. I agree with you that value and price are not dual systems. In my interpretation value is only activated in by and through successful monetary ex-change. I think you are fighting another opponent in this last post. Now as for Andrew K's departure from the list, I made an effort to ask him to come back. I do not deny that what you say about his reasons for leaving are at least partially true. But stubborness has something to do with it as well. In my opinion, Andrew left because he is incapable of saying something as simple as this: "Jerry, while I did not intend to threaten you, I am sorry if my words came across this way to you. It should however be obvious to you that I, not being a big guy, could not have had intention of wrestling with you because even in your weakened condition, it's plain that you would have kicked my ass." In solidarity, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT