not so guest-like
guesta at econ.utah.edu
Tue Nov 1 17:52:19 MST 1994
Fred Moseley e-orated. . .
>those who accept the "new" solution should either
>refute these arguments or should show how they are consistent with their
o.k. lets. . .
1) notice that all of flax was used to produce linen. The "new" solution
would be hating it if someone were to ask "hey, what if we want to consume
flax as well as using it as an input?"
2) if the production periods of flax and linen are of different lengths, big
problem, but the solution assumes this problem away I guess
3) this "solution" is ex-post instead of ex-ante meaning. . .that to find the
price of the nut on a car, we must first sell the car to find its price and
only then can we move backward to solve for the price of the nut.
4) notice that, the c of flax is 0. Try this model with any dead labor and
the solution no longer holds. For example. . .
c v s Value c v s Price
flax 1 2 2 5 flax 1 2 2 4
linen 5 1 1 7 linen 5 1 1 8
7 is not equal to 8 because we incorporated dead labor into the production of
instead of "new" solution, perhaps we should re-name it the "lopper" solution
because the dead labor of all the inputs is lopped off.
Hans G. Ehrbar e-orated. . .
>The transformation problem
>can be resolved in a very simple manner. Marx was talking about the
>gross product when he should have used the net product.
hmmmmm. . .? ? ? would lop cause karl to wince? I don't remember any 0's in
the c column of the tables in Capital.
might karl say something to the effect that in order to solve the problem,
you assumed away the problem. . .
guesta who it seems is not so guest-like and who read in the WSJ this morning
that only 30% of Moscovites turned out to vote to elect the head guy of the
MMM company to their house of representatives but who is in jail and who did
not read this run-on sentence without a period
More information about the Marxism