OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: (OPE-L) Re: Hume and constraint based theories

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

Ian wrote


But a further limitation of this theory, or at least a
limitation of how it has been used, is that it does not
admit of contradictory constraints, for example Marx's
aggregate equalities. I don't want to argue whether
Marx's equalities do or do not hold. Instead I want to
point out that some interpreters of Sraffa's theory
deny the existence of contradictory constraints in reality,
for no other reason, it seems to me at least, than
sets of overdetermined equations cannot be solved (or
they think they cannot be solved).


Hasn't Michele Naples' point been that the two equalities
over determining an equilibrium set of equations does
not logically invalidate Marx but only indicates that capitalist
exploitation has to be incompatible with equilibrium?



 The fallacy consists
in reducing transfactually active mechanisms in open
systems to the effects they generate in closed systems.


Let me think about that! About the work the distinction between
open and closed systems is doing in this ingenious formulation.



For example, reducing the mechanism of the law of value to
the definition of value as embodied labour, or reducing
the mechanism of the equalisation of profits to the
assumption of equal profit rates. This is a real blunder,
particularly as it seems to me that the interesting dynamic
questions can only arise in theories that admit of
contradictory tendencies in the economy that interact
over time.


Yours, Rakesh

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]