From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 09:11:54 EST
Ian wrote on Friday, November 14: > I agree it is not a causal theory. > The fact that mathematically it is expressed as > solutions to a set of simultaneous equations (i.e, > constraints on possible values of variables) is a sign > of that. This implies that Marxian theories where there are sets of simultaneous equations are also not causal theories. Do you agree with that inference? > But this isn't a good thing. It's a limitation. > Although this is not to deny that an initial > abstraction from change can be illuminating. So I > think there's no need to justify a constraint-based > theory by implying that philosophy tells us we > can't hope to do any better. We can and should build > dynamic, causal theories of the economy. Put in the context of some of the many discussions that we on OPE-L have had over the years, does this mean that your conception of value is temporalist (rather than 'simultaneist')? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 00:00:01 EST