just answers that require no thought. > >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? translated in capital and class in two parts in 1977 as marx, classical economics and the problem of dynamics. the second half is a concentrated attack on the methodology of comparative statics. > >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... in previous email exchange with allin, fred has agreed that in order for his interpretation to hold marx had to have made a mistake in writing that there are two reasons why the value of a commodity and its price of production diverge. rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST