Steve wrote in 5753 > > >But surely one hundred and thirty years of trying, without finding a >solution that someone else could not find a logical flaw in, This is unreasonable. Some one can always find a logical flaw. No theory would ever get off the ground if it could only be cleared for flight after no one claimed to have found a logical flaw in it. The way I look at is that there are different successful ways of dealing with the problem. You have Fred's and Alejandro's argument that the inputs don't have to be transformed--there is no problem to which Marx ever gave his imprimatur; if only the means of prod are in the form of value, then you have Duncan's solution (Duncan's treatment of the money wage seems quite superior to taking the real wage as given, as Fred recently underlined); if both the outlays on constant and variable capital have been determined by simple prices, you have Shaikh's solution (with change in profit being accounted for by revenue) or Gouverneur's (which maintains as I have argued both equalities in a real sense); I haven't studied Andrew K's solution. There are many solutions to a problem which itself is described in different ways. I think it is a good idea that you do not reject the labor theory of value due to a transformation problem. However you characterize the problem--though there may be no problem--there is surely a reasonable enough solution which should allow the theory to go on to the next level, i.e., to be tested in practice. Of course as we all know you don't turn to the TP to bury Marxian value theory, but you have yet to find supporters of your logical criticism. So perhaps this is why you have returned today to your redoubtable (as you see it) friend--the TP. > is a sign that maybe this problem *is* insoluble--and that maybe >therefore there is something wrong with the initial presumption that >"labour is the only source of value, and value the only source of >profit"... This does not follow. The reasons why certain interpretations may be flawed may have nothing to do with this foundational premise. By the way, no one maintains the initial presumption as you have stated it. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT