a profound comment on the transformation problem
"This section solves the puzzle about value and prices of production called the transformation problem ... It is not crucial to the larger story of capitalism." -- Charles Andrews, _From Capitalism to Equality_, p. 97. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: a profound comment on the transformation problem
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 Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:50:22 Jim Devine wrote: "This section solves the puzzle about value and prices of production called the transformation problem ... It is not crucial to the larger story of capitalism." -- Charles Andrews, _From Capitalism to Equality_, p. 97. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
Re: Re: a profound comment on the transformation problem
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 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 His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total property income = total surplus-value. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: a profound comment on the transformation problem
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 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 His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" . . . Alert. Alert. Value theory thread incoming. Take cover. mbs
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: a profound comment on the transformation problem
At 07:19 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: Alert. Alert. Value theory thread incoming. Take cover. Value theory? What's that? Doug economists know the price everything and the value of nothing... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: a profound comment on the transformation problem
In a message dated 9/21/00 4:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the "solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_ or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total property income = total surplus-value. For a crisp demolition of this "solution," see M.C. Howard and J.E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, vol II., pp. 276-80. --jks
