On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:40:03 Michael Perelman wrote:
>Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
>raise passions. I thought that Jim's response to him was measured.
I put this thread on a bad track????? How, by saying that after reviewing the debate
on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two years I have
reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest? Well, as long
as the TSS is not proven to be logically inconsistent what do you want me to call
people who insist without proving that these views are wrong and should be ignored? I
am in fact being extremely polite, these intellectually dishonest individuals deverve
to be called worst names.
Anyway, I think you are extremely rude in ignoring my original message which I spent
some time preparing to establish a dialogue and an exchange with you regarding your
views on fixed capital. I reproduce this message below to make clear that your
accusation of me having put this thread on a bad track is misplaced (in fact, Louis
and Jim are the ones putting this thread on a bad track by either rediculing my views
(Louis) or insulting (Jim calling me dogmatic). No wonder people do not respond to
your requests of joining the discussion, for what to get ridiculed and insulted????
Here is my original message if you really want to dialogue I am willing to forget all
the misplaced statements, insults and accusations:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:32:08 Michael Perelman wrote:
>The algebraic theories of the transformation problem don't make sense
>because they cannot account for the flow values from fixed durable
>capital goods.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that so far (100+
years) the algebraic theories of the transformation problem have
been limited to formalizations based on either simultaneous sytems
of equations or matrix algebra, ie: static systems. It seems to
me that it is a little premature to say that no algebraic theory
of the transformation problem is possible when so little mathematical
"wisdom" have been used by Marxian economists. It is only in the
last ten years that formalizations using difference equations have
appeared in the "solutions" proposed by TSS authors, allowing for
the firts time for the notion of time to be taking into account
and finally breaking away from the static mold rooted so deep in
the economists' methodology, including Marxist economists. These
authors have shown that what was previously thought of as inconsistencies
in Marx's "transformation" was not the result of the mathematical
tools being used (simultaneous equations) but the result !
of their methodology regarding the notion of value determination
which justified these type of formalizations on the first place.
In fact the latest chapter of the debate on value theory at OPE-L
makes it very clear that what divides Marxist economists today is
precisely their different methodological views regarding the notions
of determination of value and the damaging effects of not taking
into account the methodology of the particular mathematical formalization
(simultaneous equations implying simultaneous determination)being
critically adopted by the majority of Marxist economists. Change
the methodology of determination (from simultaneous to temporal
determination) and you need to adopt a different mathematical formalization
(difference equations)in your interpretation of the transformation
problem. In the process you demonstrate what was previously impossible
to prove and that this new proof or "solution" can also be formalized
but with a different set of algebraic t!
ools. This important methodological point regarding the notion
of determination in Marxian economics is all new territory. If
in addition to this point we consider the new work on nonlinear
dynamics (unfortunately mostly done by orthodox economists) I don't
see why we can not expect some very smart individual to come up
with an appropriate formalization of the unpredictability you're
referring to in the dynamics of the relationship between value flows and fixed
capital.
Do you find this an impossible task? or should we give up mathematical
formalization altogether and go back to verbal dialectics?
Fabian
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
