Fabian Balardini wrote:
>
> 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?
yes, but the above tone.
> 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
First of all, I suspect that the majority of people here do not even know what TSS is.
You might be interested to know that I had written in that tradition slightly before
Andrew Kliman.
> .
> 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 am sorry that you consider my lack of a response rude. I apologize.
> 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).
I did not understand either Jim or Louis to have take issue with your ideas.
> Here is my original message if you really want to dialogue I am willing to forget
>all the misplaced statements, insults and accusations:
Good, but I confess that my time is very limited now.
>
> 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.
I don't agree. I think that some of the TSS people also use algebraic formulations.
> 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.
Those equations are what I meant in the last comment.
> 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?
The reason for my skepticism is that it is impossible to predict the future trajectory
of technical change.
> Fabian
>
> Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
