Isn't there a transformation problem between ordinal
utility and prices in the derivation of prices cum
demand. By this I do not mean the failure of
transitivity or the eminent voting paradox problem, I
mean the sloppy transformation of utils into prices
which cannot be done, sui generis, withou
This is not to reject it, that is partly what I do to
make a living, but to see its shortcoming.
--- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I think that the main issues of the
> so-called "transformation
> problem" are not mathematical and the "problem"
> should be renamed as the
> "d
Although I think that the main issues of the so-called "transformation
problem" are not mathematical and the "problem" should be renamed as the
"disaggregation problem," I think it's a mistake to totally reject math or
even equilibrium conceptions.
At 01:52 AM 4/2/01 -0700, you wrote:
>IN AN
Shaikh uses math, econometrics, simulations, etc. But his points in such papers
as "The Humbug Production Function," "The Poverty of Algebra," and the papers on
the transformation problem are well to be considered: we must not confuse the
laws of math or statistics with the laws of economics; math
IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "Geometry and experience" by
Albert Einstein, on the relevance of mathematics he
says "as far as mathematics corresponds to experience
it is not certain, and as far as mathematics is
certain it does not correspond to experience". Of the
many misunderstandings of Marx, there
I haven't been following this thread (multiple apologies), but what was wrong
with Shaikh's solution? He offers a critique of the Bortkiewicz procedure and
proposes a method of transformation which reconciles the contradiction (of
Bortkiewicz/Sweezy, where the aggregate equalities assumed by Marx
