> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 03:40:31 -0800
> Reply-to: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
> From: bellofio@cisi.unito.it (riccardo bellofiore)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:1450] Re: Temporality vs simultaneity
> And I need to understand your hypotheses on 'time'. Why your temporality should impose
> change between one period and the other?
I am not imposing anything.
> And if you temporality is neutral on the issue, you must
> presuppose nothing happens when calculating prices
> and the rate of profits.
I don't think "presuppsing nothing happen" is being neutral. It is
presupposing something.
..
> >Therefore, although Bruce is right to say that if you keep all unchanged then
> >the TA converges to SA, he is not right to claim that this shows
> >that in general TA's results represent a "slice" of SA results.
>
> Well, *I* do not find any difficulty in imagining the value categories even
> BEHIND the simultaneous solution
For that matter I do not find any difficulty in imagining value categories
" behind" any bourgoise economic category. I don't think this is the
problem. The problem is to have a theoretical framework in which
value and price are two sides of the same coin AND this coin being
class relations of production. Although I can read these class
relations into Sraffa, Keynes, Marshall, Ricardo, Smith, Shumpeter,
Samuelson's textbook of economics, etc. etc., it is not the job of all
these authors to reveal them. That is the reason why I turn to Marx.
Massimo