A reply to Ajit's ope-l 5241.
He writes:
"when you are measuring output prices, the input prices must be measured by
how much of those output would take to replace the inputs used up in the
production process. This is the 'real' measure of the input prices."
This passage is rather unclear, but it seems to be a way of distinguishing
between two meanings of "input prices"; IP1, the prices of commodities at
time of input; and IP2, the prices that that reflect what the inputs are worth
at the time of output. It seems to suggest that IP1 and IP2 can differ
quantitatively.
This is exactly what the TSS interpretation maintains. IP2 is just a synonym
for what is called "output prices" in TSS research (and in everything else).
Thus, Ajit's "explanation" fails to satisfy the conditions of the challenge,
because it permits input and output prices to differ.
Moreover, Ajit's conclusive proof of the "absurdity" of the TSS interpretation
turns out to be this: we're right that input and output prices can differ.
Personally, I'm inclined to interpret this more as a vindication than as a
proof of absurdity.
Andrew Kliman