Andrew wrote in [OPE-L:2949]:
> First, I wish to thank Jerry for his Diogenes-like labors in search of (E),
> from which he came up empty-handed.
Thanks, but keep reading.
> One may discount my
> reading by saying that I have an ax to grind on the issue, but does Jerry?
> No. He went on a painstaking and time-consuming search for (E) or its
> equivalent and, although he surely noticed the equations and terms like
> "equilibrium profit rate" used in connection with r, didn't find it stated
> explicitly. So we have a disagreement here. But that doesn't mean that it
> is a matter of "opinion" whether (E) or its equivalent is stated explicitly.
> The very fact that there's a disagreement on this issue is a *demonstration*
> that (E) or its equivalent is *not* stated explicitly.
I do not find the above to be a very convincing argument. Although I do
not "have an ax to grind on this issue", I don't think that my
previous accessment should be given any special weight (over that of Gil's
or anyone else's) *or* that simply saying that there is a "disagreement"
is an answer to the position that Gil posed previously *or* that it
constitutes a "*demonstration*" that (E) or the equivalent is not
specified in Roemer.
Specifically, I would ask both Andrew and Gil (and others):
* Do equations 4.3 and 4.4 (p. 91) and 5.1 (p. 115) in Roemer's
book (_Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory_, CUP,
1981) specify (E) or the equivalent? Yes or no? Why or why not?
Just about everybody, I trust, on the list has a copy of this book so this
should be a question that others besides Andrew and Gil should be able to
attempt to answer.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry