From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 15:02:46 EST
Rakesh, I may have missed which paper by Freeman you mean. I have yet to see any convincing dynamic analysis, but you seem to indicate that there is one. Can you give me a better reference please. Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > > > > >> >Then Carchedi "transforms" his "values" into his "prices" in > >> >such a way that this condition does not hold. > >> > >> No the conditions of D=S and intersectoral equalization of rate of > >> profit are assumed to hold in that one time subscripted period in > >> Carchedi's determination of production prices. > >> > >> Ernesto, I don't think you are addressing TSS reasons for claiming > >> that the bourgeois notions of prices as long term equilibrium, center > >> of gravity points has been conflated with Marx's idea of price of > >> production which need not have said equilibrium property to be > >> distinguishable from market price. > > > >This would have some conviction if they presented a dynamic > >model with differential equations but they do not. > > Where exactly does Freeman's use of difference equations fall short > of the true kind of dynamism for which you are looking? Don't they > get us closer than simultaneous equations? > > > > >I have yet to see a dynamic model in the true sense of the > >word from the TSS people: ie, one which will operate algorithmically > >to produce their numerical results. > > Again what exactly is the problem in Freeman's equations and examples > in his contribution to Marx and Non Equilibrium Economics? > > I haven't yet read the papers by Simon M and Roberto Venziani. I > shall try to read them by the end of the month. > > I have already suggested what my criticism would have been of Freeman > and Kliman's arguments against David L and Duncan Foley. > > rb > > Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EST