Re: RE: Suppression of Marx

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

.>
> There is a difference between making an unconvincing argument of logical
> inconsistency and claiming a logical inconsistency without any attempt
> to demonstrate it.  (By the way, I never understood the Sraffian
> argument against the LTV as in general based on logical inconsistency--I
> thought it was that the LTV was redundant and therefore unnecessary--an
> argument I do not buy, by the way.) mat

That's right about the Sraffan critique.

It's unfortunate that Andrew feels obliged to regard my comment on his views
as an attack on him. They are no so intended. They are a criticism of his
views and his tone, but he's an intelligent and thoughtful economist--just a
little bit thin-skinned. Not that I am always to equable all the time.  (I
once called Carrol a bucket of shit because I thought he'd accused me of
being the internet equivalent of a police provacateur, not either of our
finest moments, I think), but I apologized and we are friends now; Hell,
even Charles knows that my criticism of his views, which are much harsher
than mine of Andrew's, are not a personal attack, and I don't take Charles'
robust ripostes personally either. We like each other, we just disagree
sharply about a lot of things.

jks

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.