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
Where do you get
the idea that Hume uses deduction extensively? Deduction can only clarify
relationships between ideas or concepts. Sense impressions are the source of
all substantive knowledge. Of course Hume claims that induction from present
to past is not justifiable by reason but that does n
Where does Marx claim that everything of value in the world has "that much
labor tied up into it"?
Marx distinguishes at the very least as I recall , use values and exchange
values. Things such as air have use value without any labor being involved
in making it. At most it is exchange values that
Interspersed comments follow.
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:54:01 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>I don't think that this is an accurate presentation of history or the
>literature on this matter. I, for one, think that the so-called "New
>solution" (which is hardly "new" at this point) solves all the issues
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
Andrew Hagen writes:
>The Transformation Problem is in no way boring. IMHO it is at the crux of
>the question of the validity of classical Marxism. It is unfair, though,
>to judge Marx as a thinker who failed for this reason; Marx died before he
>could finish editing volume 2, and far before vo
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:46:05 +0100, Chris Burford wrote:
>[] However, even though "the transformation problem" is extremely boring, I
>note that Barkley does not necessarily imply inverted commas around it. He
>does not appear to think it can be dismissed, as I do, as an artefact of
>mechan
Chris,
Well, I am agnostic on the transformation problem.
I am in print as expressing some sympathy with the
Kliman-McGlone TSS solution, which is the non-
equilibrium approach you mention. I reported on some
of the latest discussions of this that occurred at the
Eastern Economic Associatio
12 matches
Mail list logo
