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: Carchedi's TSS approach

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

At 13.52 06/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
At 23.55 19/02/2004 -0800, you wrote: 
"I do not agree with either the orthodox theory or
Screpanti's, but that is irrelevant.  It is the charge
of incoherence that -I would guess-  would attract the
'Damned Lies' bit."

Oh! I had not seen this one and I'm not sure who wrote
this. It could well be a good joke. Coherence is the
last thing one can find in the TSS approach to Marx or
for that matter anything. It is laughable that the
author of the above quote thinks that such a mild
criticism of an approach deserves to be called "dammed
lies". I think the TSS is not only incoherent but
simply nonsensical! ajit sinha


My charge against Charchedi's TSS approach was twofold:
Inconsistency: he uses Marx's reproduction conditions but then determines
prices without respecting these conditions;


Ernesto, I don't understand the criticism. Marx analyzes simple and
expanded reproduction without ever determining prices that respected
those conditions: the schema are given in fixed values. The schema
are only a preliminary and provisional analysis of the difficulties
in the circulation of the capital. Why should a price theory have to
hold in conditions of simple reproduction (Bortkiewicz) or even
equilibrium (Winternitz)?


A theory of market prices need not require these conditions to hold. A
theory of production prices does. On the other hand, Carchedi assumes that
the structure of demand is such that no realization problems exist and  the
rate of profit is uniform. This implies that the system is in reproduction
equilibrium. Then Carchedi "transforms" his "values" into his "prices" in
such a way that this condition does not hold.



dogmatism: Marx (as he interprets him) is always right. 

Again there are indeed those of us who think Marx was more incomplete
than incorrect.


"More" means that you believe he is at least a little incorrect? In what?

There is nothing inherently dogmatic about this
position



Of course.

especially since Marx developed his theory through a careful
and detailed critique of the theorists who preceded him.

Yours, Rakesh 

Best

Ernesto


ps didn't Carchedi write a price with Werner de Haan about the
replacement of fixed capital in conditions of simple reproduction?

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]