On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
an e-mail discussion
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
--
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:38:45 Louis Proyect wrote:
The latest Science and Society has an interesting article (Rhetoric and
Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism) by
editor Dave Laibman. It is a response to one written by Andrew Kliman and
Ted McGlone titled "A
Jim,
I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a while, so
could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main points or how his
proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous solutions) of the transformation
problem.
Thanks,
Fabian
--
On
What about his discussion of the falling r? Does he also take a single/simulataneist
system approach or he mentions temporality?
--
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:54:43 Jim Devine wrote:
At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim,
I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for
