Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to
> ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it
> so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it?

This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain why I
reject the LTV. Then the roof fell in. Rakesh wouldn't even let me back out
of a discussion that (to be frank) doesn't interest me much. I did spend
some time on value theoey, came to the conclusions I've had to adumbrate
here, and never even wrote much on it because it was evident to be that the
only pepople who werereally interestedw ere the true believers, and I wasn't
going to persuade _them_. So, I agree, it's not that important.


> I could understand if you were using the theory to predict the
> ultimate implosion of capitalism, as the OCC approaches infinity and
> the ROP approaches zero. But people don't seem to do that any more.

My point exactly.

> It seems to me that it's somehow a symbolic battle over "orthodoxy,"
> with the rejecters using their rejection to advertise their rejection
> of orthodoxy, and the defenders using it as a badge of loyalty. Aside
> from advertising these affiliation, what's the point?

Quite right. And I don't mean to advertising. The discussion came about as I
have explained.

jks

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com