Re: Game theory and such (fwd) -Reply

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I knew I was running the risk of starting up the same old
record...

Forget the analogy of tools, if it's going to take conversation off
the point.  Although I would be more interested in knowing _why_
Jerry "rejects" the analogy, rather than only hearing his opinion.

It appears to me that there are many "labor theories of value".  Adam
Smith promoted one of them.  "Labour was the first price, the
original purchase-money that was paid for all things.  It was not by
gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world
was originally purchased."  In capitalism, there are also landlords
and capitalists who collect rent and profit, but no commodity exists
without being at least in part the product of labour.

What was "not said" Jerry?  I know one thing I did _not_ say, I
didn't offer game theory as a substitute for value theory.  I don't
know anyone who did.

Perhaps I don't understand Method. Indiv. as a 'philosophical
perspective'.  I understand it rather literally as conveyed in the
phrase itself as a method.  I understand it as a set or type of
_method_ with which to address one aspect of human behavior, i.e. the
individually self-interested aspect.  Or don't you think anybody ever
acts that way?

I'd appreciate it if you would reciprocate by explaining what the
hell you're talking about, if you would like to have a conversation
rather than just throwing darts at me...

Lisa

p.s. Never fear, you'll get no jam from me, rhubarb, elderberry or
otherwise.  More for the rest of us who have some taste.

>>> <glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  1/17/96, 10:16pm >>>
Marx _never_ said he accepted the LTV. His understanding of value was
 qualitatively different from the Ricardian theory.

> Both [Marx and Adam Smith] could see that, in capitalism,
> individuals were each acting in their own economic self-interest.
I> really don't see what is so controversial about that kind of
> statement.

It's what is _not_ said above that is controversial.
[snip Game theory _does_ have its uses, but, not as a _substitute_
for  value theory.

Do you not understand, though, that  methodological individualism as
a philosophical perspective is  inconsistent with many other
philosophical perspectives?
[snip]




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------