(1) Mark Jones: you asked me to send my papers on the Okishio theorem that I think you should read. I'm a bit perplexed; you said you had read "Kliman on Okishio." Also, you seem to have a copy of the Freeman and Carchedi collection, which contains a chapter by me on the Okishio theorem. That's really the thing to read. If you don't have it, I can send you a preliminary draft of the paper. The publisher has the rights to the published version. Please let me know.
(2) I erred when I wrote that the dividing line between vols. 1 and 2 of Howard and King's _History_ was WWI. The actual dividing line is 1929.
(3) With respect to this work, Jim Devine noted that "H&K present a totally "neo-Ricardian" Sraffian understanding of Marxian economics, straight out of Ian Steadman or Joan Robinson."
Yes -- I shouldn't have been so uncritical of them :) . But humorously, the peculiar thing about this is that they are NOT Sraffians, but quite critical of Sraffianism. Yet they asserted that the flaws in the Sraffian framework have nothing to do with the validity of the "refutations" of Marx's value theory. What they seemed not to realize was that, since Marx's value theory is "refuted" by means of the Sraffian framework, the flaws in that framework (e.g., the invalid derivation of general results from the special case in which input and output prices are equal) are likewise flaws in the "refutations."
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home: Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E Pace University New York, NY 10023 Pleasantville, NY 10570 (914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman at msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.