I am going to come right out and say something here. It seems to me that some on OPE-L would like to dismiss TSS on the grounds that there are not real scholars (Ajit) while others think that they are scholastic (Jerry). And yet others think they are just lunatics or plotters, etc. And of the people remaining on this list, I just don't understand the bases of hostility. For what is TSS saying? It seems to me that they are asking that Marxist use some tools other than standard Samuelson-Sraffian i/o analysis such as difference equations and dynamic models. So TSS thinks that Marx can be formalized in a dynamic model with money. Blaug does not even think Ricardo can be formalized with i/o tools. Now unlike me, the TSS people have formal training in i/o analysis as well as difference equation modelling. So it is not out of ignorance that they recommend that we proceed as they have. But as a non economist I just don't see what is so unreasonable about what they are recommending. I grant that I may be missing the point which may be quite obvious to formally trained economists who have taken time to study all these tools carefully. And I don't want to bring the level of the discussion down. But I did follow the debates between Duncan and Alan and between Andrew and Steven K. I think I undertood what they were saying. And Steven K makes a reasonable argument that TSS results should be able to apply to conditions of zero rates of change--though I am not so convinced by this. But it is a reasonable argument. But overall I really don't understand why things have got so bad. The non economist, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT