>>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. > >It's settled for me. I don't have time to think about everything. >So, enjoy, i wish you luck. Am I bailing out? Yes. Do I care what >you think of me for doing it? No. jks
Justin, the only time I responded harshly to you was after you accused value theorists of being desperate and inward turning and then described the intent of value theory in a wholly superficial way. Other than that, I haven't assailed your personal motives or doubted your sincerity and willingness to discuss these matters rationally. But I suppose given how this list works--and that Michael P never reprimanded you as referred to us value theorists as desperate, inward turning true believers and flag wavers--I am to be blamed again for the acrimony on this list. I think you want me to think of you in abusive personal terms so as to justify how you proceeded in this discussion. No such luck. >To be consistent you should be making the >>charges of metaphysics and illogic. > >OK, that too. The metaphysical charge is absurd on the face of it just as when Pearson made it against the Mendelians--that something is not necessary for calculation does not mean that it's not real and does not have causal force; the illogic charge could be persuasive however if the whole idea of taking fixed capital as embodying a quantity of congealed labor that can be determined prior to, and independent, of distribution, is shown to be impossible, and to be Marx's assumption as well. Of course this putatively Marxian assumption is shown to be untenable because of the possibility of negative values with joint production. It does seem to me that this is where the neo Ricardian can hit the hardest against Marx's theory of value. That I think the redundancy charge and the transformation problems are bogus does not mean I think things are settled. I say this not in hopes that you resume the discussion but to underline that I had been proceeding in this discussion in the exact opposite manner that you said I was. Rakesh
