In the midst of his very interesting and useful thoughts on math, Gil writes that "even if one doesn't agree with the premises of Okishio's theorem, who would have known that Marx's claim was inconsistent with those premises before Okishio's proof?" I think this example shows up some of the limitations of mathematics as often applied to economics, though they do not apply to math _per se_. The fact is that Okishio's premise (constant real wages) is _not_ the same as Marx's (constant rate of surplus-value), so that Okishio's theorem is not really a critique of Marx. Pen-l will be glad to hear that I am not criticizing Gil here, since I think he is familiar with the problems arising from the conflation of the two assumptions (with Marx's, real wages rise with productivity). What I'm commenting on is the fact that many or even most of the writings since Okishio ignored this confusion and even ignored John Roemer's generalization of Okishio to a case that approximates the constant rate of surplus-value assumption. The authors wanted to talk about, apply, and extend Okishio's math and how it "proved" Marx wrong. I hope that authors such as Dave Laibman (and Gil himself & Frank Thompson) have gotten us away from the constant-real-wage assumption. The moral of the story is that one has to remember that math is a _means to an end_ (it's formalized logic) and should not become an end in itself, replacing scholarly discussion of the subject matter (such as actual reading of Marx) or other methods (such as dialectics). in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
