>>A contemptuous comment. >> > >R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your >pet theory as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is >normal for people to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even >to think the ideas and reserach programs of others as fundamentally >misguided, without taking it personally. What do you think about my >Hayekianism? No doubt that I have my head screwed on backwards. I >don't take it personally as long as you press serious objections.
I press serious objections and you respond by calling me a believer and flag waver instead of facing up to the fact that you have not provided compelling reasons for your very harsh negative judgement of value theory. I don't read your comments as a personal attack but as evidence of frustration on your part. What you thought was settled is in fact not. > >>You're not persuading us not because we are true believers but >>because your reasons (redundancy, transformation problem) are not as >>strong as you think they are. > >Perhaps not. My fundamental objection is that the program isn't >going anywhere. I think it's a waste of time. Justin, which alternative is going somewhere? > But I also think that a lot of people--maybe you--are attached to >it not because it's so explanatiorly powerful, but because, as Doug >says, it's a sort of a pledge of allegience to the red flag. This is indeed a contemptous response since I have taken the time to say what advantages in terms of clarity (Marx's transformation procedure is easier for the working class to follow than Sraffa's simultaneous equations with a standard commodity as the numeraire) and realism (even if we don't need genes and labor value to calculate, we include them in the interests of better grasping the actual process which is not that of inputs turning themselves into outputs) and scope (ability to integrate money) are gained by Marx's value theory while the objections (redundancy, transformation problem) are not compelling. You are in fact most often saying that value is not needed--which is a claim that does not really justify your harsh judgement. To be consistent you should be making the charges of metaphysics and illogic. If you want we can deal with joint production and negative values in following up on moral depreciation. rb
