I think (of course!) that Ajit Sinha has grossly misrepresented
Farjoun and Mchover. Two brief observations: (1) They think that
an adequate theory of price is important, but it is certainly not
the "sole purpose" of their argument. Their theory of price is
harnessed to the usual concerns of Marxian economics (generating
and explaining the "laws of motion" etc.). (2) Their argument
against the equalized rate of profit assumption is not that it
is an abstraction, but that it is a *bad* abstraction. Their
own stochastic approach is also highly abstract, but the claim
is that it does not abstract from an *essential* feature of the
process of capitalist competition. The F and M argument has its
weak points, and is certainly not beyond criticism; but I find
Ajit's dismissal patronizing and complacent.
==========================
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(910) 759-5762
==========================
