David L wrote in [OPE:3804]:
> Another general point. Jerry asks (his point (b)): "How
> would you evaluate David's position in the last sentence. . .",
> which reads: "There seems to be no reason why the denominator
> [K/L] should necessarily rise more rapidly than the numerator
> [Y/L]; the whole trend is therefore called into question." Now,
> at this stage in the chapter, I am formulating the well-known ob-
> jection to the view that a rising OCC emerges unproblematically
> from Marx's discussion. Jerry should have made it clear that I
> then go on to formulate MY OWN answer to the question, which (I
> believe) demonstrates what Marx was only able to assert, namely
> that -- under mostly reasonable and general conditions -- the
> technical composition, k, does indeed rise faster than productivi-
> ty, y. When Jerry leaves it as quoted, from the part of the chap-
> ter that merely sets the stage, he gives the impression that I
> converge with, say, Paul Sweezy's indeterminism concerning the
> trend in the OCC. I don't.
I accept this criticism. I should have included more from your book.
However, I did not (at least, intentionally) "give the impression that"
you "converge with ... Sweezy." Yet, I can understand the source of this
misunderstanding which stems from the brevity of my original post.
Of course, if you were to reconsider and join OPE-L, then you could be
able to speak for yourself on this list. Perhaps you will not be surprised
if I tell you that many people have referred to your writings and talks on
this list in the last year plus. What might surprise you is that one of
the only things that have united Gil Skillman and (from a TSS perspective)
Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and John Ernst is a heartfelt desire for you
to join us.
In solidarity, Jerry