Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:4186]:
> With respect to ope-l 4180, I have to say the following. Allin has now
> changed his objection. The new objection is that a particular
> implication of the TSS transformation (equalized profit rates can
> coexist with unequal rates of accumulation) strikes him as "odd."
> First, it doesn't strike me as odd. Second, "oddness" doesn't make it
> impossible. (I find most laws of physics odd, i.e., contrary to my
> intuition.) Third, the TSS transformation account shows that it *IS*
> possible. Fourth, "oddness" doesn't mean the TSS interpretation is
> internally incoherent. Fifth, "oddness" doesn't mean that it differs
> from Marx's account. Sixth, "oddness" doesn't mean that Marx's
> account isn't internally coherent.
What I find is "odd" is that in Andrew's response to Allin's #4180, he
nowhere confronts what I read as the major point of Allin's post, namely,
that the Kliman-McGlone solution represents another "iterative
approximation of the Bortkiewicz solution", that there is an "arbitrary
variation in accumulation ratios across sectors", and that "there is no
independent rationale for such differences [...] or in other words, they
are 'cooked."
In solidarity, Jerry