Hi Rakesh! 1. Do you have a brief presentation of your "inverse transformation interpretation"? 2. "I am at a loss why the TSS'ers do not recognize that in his 1941 dynamics book to which Mattick Sr wrote an introduction, Grossmann demonstrated how at odds Marx was at equilibrium assumptions of bourgeois economists." Reference? 3. "I noticed however that you did not mention that your interpretation requires that Marx's mention of double divergence in Capital 3 and TSV be excised in effect from the text." I don't know Fred and Laibman's articles in S&S, but I've given an interpretation of what you call the "double divergence" in my article in IJPE. It doesn't require to "excise" texts. I don't believe, btw, that Fred advises to make such a thing... 4. "ii. it accommodates your and alejandro's evidence that the cost prices are a given precondition and the inputs don't have to be transformed..." "...though i agree with you and alejandro that the inputs themselves don't have to be transformed...)" I don't think (I have never thought or written in private or public form) that "inputs don't have to be transformed". Inputs are under the form of "cost-*price*" and cost-price is a "transformed magnitude" (as its name itself indicates), meaning that it corresponds to the social labor-time represented by the money the capitalist advances at the moment the inputs are consumed. As Marx makes it clear in the text omitted in Engels edition of Ch. 9, Vol III, K is a common magnitude for both values (W) and production prices (P). So, I'd very happy to know where did you get the idea that I think that "the inputs don't have to be transformed". Abrazos, A.R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST