From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Oct 29 2007 - 09:14:01 EDT
I offer my apology to the list: I had intended to send this post from another of my addresses. It can be confusing when different addresses use the same email system and hence visually look the same. In any event, the comments expressed in this post were those of an individual subscriber. In solidarity, Jerry PS: my pratt account, beginning last Friday changed some features and the consequence of this is that lines are being chopped-up. Sorry about that. Hopefully, I'll find a solution to this soon. > A short reply to Alan Freeman: > >> The TSSI refutation of the Okishio theorem is an argument about logic: >> whether Marx's reasoning is logically inconsistent as alleged, or not, >> as TSSI proves. > > Freeman uses TSSI Magic above. He claims that "Marx's reasoning" has been > proved to be logically consistent but - like the 'magic' employed by > magicians - there is a slight of hand. > > Now you see the Okishio Theorem. > Now you see Marx's reasoning. > Voila! > The Okishio Theorem has been refuted! > > The deception - which we know is purposeful since it has been called to > their attention on many occasions previously - is what they claim to be > Marx's reasoning is not. > > The same kind of magic is employed by K-M in their article on the TP. > It seems to be magic indeed until you realize that their magic is only > accomplished through the trick of assuming that prices of production in > period analysis in Marx's theory can change for reasons other than those > specifically identified by Marx. This magic requires one to suspend logic > and forget that Marx used the word 'only'. It is, in fact, an attempted > *correction of Marx's theory which anyone can see for themselves if they > watch *closely* what has been done. Like professional magicians, they are > only able to convince others (a gullible few) because the audience _wants_ > to believe that there is real magic at play. > > Then there is the V = 0 assumption. With this assumption, TSSI authors > attempt feats of magic. Yet, look closely at their formulas and the > meanings of those formulas where V = 0. > > Q. What is the TSSI rate of surplus value where V = 0? > A: 0, of course (unless you believe that surplus value can be created in a > system without wage-labor). > > Q: What is the TSSI organic composition of capital where V = 0? > A: C / 0, of course. > > Q: What is the TSSI rate of profit where V = 0? > A: S / C, of course. Thus, we have a theory purports to "reclaim" Marx > which posits a condition where surplus value is created exclusively by > means of production! > > Moreover, for TSSI formulas to be true it must hold for _all_ conditions > in which the formula claims that it _does_ hold for - and that includes v > = 0. Hence, the fact that V can equal 0 in their formulas constitutes a > *refutation* of the TSSI. The fact that they even use the V = 0 > assumption at all shows that they have lost touch with the real subject > matter: they act like they live in a magical world where anything is > possible rather than in capitalism. Like some magicians they have thus > forgotten that what they performing is magic and come to believe > themselves in the supernatural. It is thus entirely fitting that we > should be discussing the TSSI on the eve of Halloween. > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT