Duncan [960220] puts his case well, and fairly. But I'd like to see him
expand on one point.
> Where the "traditional" (Bortkiewicz, Seton,
> Morishima, Roemer) interpretation gets off the track, it seems to me, is
> in maintaining the embodied labor coefficient interpretation of "value"
> and as a result throwing out a good deal of Marx's political economic
> analysis.
What is it of Marx's political economic analysis that has to be thrown out
given the embodied labour coefficient interpretation of value?
Allin.