Ajit [4419] addresses Andrew thus:"do you find yourself so much on the backfoot?"
Hello Ajit. What a welcome change from salon politeness! I hope no-one tries to
silence you. Please continue.
Your analogy might come from many sports. From boxing, perhaps, or tennis?
Let me charitably assume cricket, where many fine shots come off the back foot,
and play it with a straight bat. I ask three questions.
First:
In [4402] referring to Andrew Kliman and Ted McGlone, you say the argument that
"input prices are equivalent to value and the divergence between value and prices
occur only in the outputs" is "the fundamental proposition crucial to their whole
approach".
But this is also either asserted or approved by, for example, Fred, Bruce, and if
I understand him right, Duncan. Indeed, it is what I understand the Single-System
approach to be. This may not prove it right, but maybe proves it needs a hearing.
I am curious if this engagement is a debate or a vendetta. I have no objections to
vendettas but I need to know which weapons to reach for.
So my first question: Do you consider this wrong only from the pens of Andrew Kliman
and Ted McGlone? Or is it wrong as a general theoretical proposition? If the latter,
it would help if you could explain the errors of the others who share the view you
criticise - above all Fred, in whose support you opened your criticism of Andrew.
Second:
in [4435] you state "you simply ASSUME that the value of money is equal to one"
I would be grateful if you could explain what other assumption might invalidate
the conclusions in question.
For example, it does not seem to me that the conclusions would be markedly different
if the value of money were, shall we say, two. Could you perhaps identify which
magnitude, or concept, of the value of money confirms Okishio and rejects KM?
Third:
I agree that Sraffa was a great Marxist. I am unconvinced only that Marx was a great
Sraffian. What is your view?
Alan