Talk:David Laibman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Biographies of living persons, edit warring, and my protection

I have protected this article for a month because of the above things, in addition to the fact that there was a complaint filed in the OTRS system over the inclusion of the material that was removed in this edit.

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are two crucial policies of Wikipedia. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles".

It has also been suggested that M.posner (talk · contribs) has a strong conflict of interest with this article. I strongly suggest he/she evaluates whether that is the case, and if he/she does, stop editing the article.

Further reading:

Daniel Bryant 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the lock?

I don't understand why this article was locked, and least of all why it was locked in the current version. My edits inserted ONLY cited material regarding a debate which is public and available in print. I don't see why a sentence from an article written by David Laibman should not be included in an article on David Laibman. David Laibman himself seems to have been the person editting his page (User:Dlaibman) to remove the section on his debate with TSSI -- but as far as I know one is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal advertisement. If Laibman has made statements in print and publicly, it seems that I should be able to put them into a Wiki article -- whether he likes it or not. Also note that Dlaibman (talk · contribs) never gave any reasons for removing the relevant material. In this context it it made perfect sense for me to repeatedly add credible information to the David Laibman page.

As for conflicts of interest, I do not know nor have I ever met or corresponded with David Laibman. I only have an interest in discussing and citing a public debate that David Laibman took part in.

Neither David Laibman nor WatchDog07 (talk · contribs) can demonstrate in any way that the cited material is innaccurate. It is all accurate. If you would like to see it, I have a copy of the article in question in PDF format, complete with tags from the university I obtained it from at the beginning of the file.

M.posner (talk · contribs)

The article was protected due to rapid-fire edit warring. That will not change. Please see m:The wrong version before complaining about the version I protected, please.

On to the disputed material.

"Dr. Laibman has been a principal critic of the Temporal Single-system Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory;, according to the latter, Marx's own theory is internally consistent, and there is thus no logical imperative to "correct" it."

What is the third-party source which says that David Laibman is a "principal critic" of TSSI? Remember, him being one in your opinion isn't enough, it has to be a fact published in reliable third party publications. You can't draw the link saying "He criticised X in Y book", because that is your interpretation. It must be published in a reliable source.

"At the conclusion of the symposium, Laibman continued to hold that the Okishio Theorem is correct on its own terms, but he nonetheless accepted that the theorem fails to disprove Marx's law."

Same as above - you cannot draw the lines itself, the fact MUST be published in a reliable third party source.

"He wrote, “If a viable technical change is made, and the real wage rate is constant, the new MATERIAL rate of profit must be higher than the old one. That is all that Okishio, or Roemer, or Foley, or I, or anyone else has ever claimed!” (David Laibman, "Two of Everything," Research in Political Economy, Vol. 18, 2000, p. 275, emphases in original.)"

That's fine - that's perfectly acceptable to quote a phrase from the book, with the reference being that book, provided it fits in the article.

"(This statement employs the TSSI's distinction between the "material" rate, and the "value" and "price" rates, of profit, which Laibman himself does not accept.)"

Reference? Source? You cannot draw these links themselves, and for these links to be included, they must be published in external, independant and reliable third party sources!

"For Laibman's overall view on this subject, see Value, Technical Change and Crisis, chapter 5."

Like the quote above, this is perfectly OK if it fits in with the article.

The protection will stand due to edit warring anyways, but I strongly ask that you read WP:OR extensively, as well as WP:V and WP:RS, before responding. Daniel Bryant 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Perplexed

I am perplexed about the difference between the material that was removed and the material that remains with respect to drawing links and stating opinions. For instance, at the bottom of the protected page, we read, "Laibman is also interested in folk-style fingerpicking acoustic guitar, and especially its application to the ragtime era of the early 20th century, as best represented by Scott Joplin, Joseph Lamb, and James Scott."

What is the third-party source that says that "Laibman is also interested" in this (and why is one needed)? What is the third-party source that says that the ragtime era is "best represented by Scott Joplin, Joseph Lamb, and James Scott"? Isn't this an opinion?

Or take the 2nd sentence of the entry. It says that Laibman's dissertation is "on a long-standing problem in Marxist economics, the formation and transformation of value in the general (abstract) capitalist economy." Isn't this an interpretation of what the dissertation is on?

I am asking these questions not in order to argue with the decision to protect the page, but so that I can understand how Laibman's role in an important debate over Okishio's theorem, and the consequences of this debate, can be discussed in an acceptable manner.

For instance, Laibman published nine pieces on the TSSI in academic publications between 1999 and 2004. I would think that this makes him a major critic of it. Would citing these nine pieces be sufficient evidence for the statement that he's a major critic of it?

No, a reliable source has to say so. Daniel Bryant 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

The page was protected due to edit warring, not that there was OR in it. Until this is all cleared up and sourced properly (see the section below), I've stubbed the whole thing pursuant to out WP:BLP and WP:V policies. Daniel Bryant 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Let's try and get some sources for the statements. The last version before the stubbed version is this.

Please read WP:RS if in doubt over whether something is "reliable". Daniel Bryant 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I think I'm a reliable source

Hi Daniel and M.posner,

I think I qualify as a reliable source here. I'm a full professor of economics at Pace University in New York. I hold BA and PhD degrees in economics. Please see [1], my department's faculty page.

A book of mine dealing with the controversy in question was published 4 months ago by Lexington books, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, a scholarly press. Please see [2], the page for this book on the publisher's website.

David Laibman's relationship to the TSSI is discussed extensively in my book. Here's the Index entry on him:

"Laibman, David, 3, 12, 152, 155n10, 165–67, 210–11; on rate of profit, 83–84, 88n6, 118–19, 124,132–33, 135, 138n15"

That this is indeed the Index entry can be verified by downloading the Index to the book. One can go to [3], scroll down to almost the bottom of the page, and click on the link where it says "This is a book that names names! Click on link to see the Index."

The book has been well received by scholars thus far, as can be ascertained from the comments on the publisher's website page and the page on my personal website.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)


[edit] Update on Andrew Kliman

Be advised that Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) has identified himself in his user page as the antichrist.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of him being a reliable source or whatnot. MrMacMan Talk 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Proposed Addition of Content

Noting that David Laibman published at least 9 pieces dealing with the Temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory between 1999 and 2004, and that the overwhelming majority of them pertained to Okishio's theorem -- a very important and notable topic -- I think his biography should include discussion of these matters, not as the central theme of the biography, but as part of it.

Thus, I propose that the following section be added. I've indicated where citations should go but haven't put in the references yet.

Please let me know what you think. If there are no objections from other editors, I'll go ahead and add this section.

Laibman on Okishio's Theorem

Between 1999 and 2004, David Laibman published at least nine pieces dealing with the Temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory. [cite DL's CV] His was the first published response to the temporalist critique of Okishio's theorem (Laibman 1999). The theorem was widely thought to have disproved Karl Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit, but proponents of the TSSI claim that the Okishio theorem is false and that their work refutes it. Laibman argued that the theorem is true and that TSSI research does not refute it.

In his lead paper in a symposium carried in Research in Political Economy in 1999, Laibman’s (1999: 216–17) key argument was that the falling rate of profit exhibited in Kliman (1996) depended crucially on the paper’s assumption that there is fixed capital which lasts forever. Laibman claimed that if there is any depreciation or premature scrapping of old, less productive, fixed capital: (1) productivity will increase, which will cause the temporally determined value rate of profit to rise; (2) this value rate of profit will therefore "converge toward" Okishio's material rate of profit; and thus (3) this value rate "is governed by" the material rate of profit.

These and other arguments were answered in Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman’s (2000) lead paper in a second symposium, published the following year in the same journal. In his response, Laibman chose not to defend claims (1) through (3). He instead put forward a "Temporal-Value Profit-Rate Tracking Theorem" that he described as "propos[ing] that [the temproally determined value rate of profit] must eventually follow the trend of [Okishio's material rate of profit]" (Laibman 2000: 275, emphasis in original). The "Tracking Theorem" states, in part: "If the material rate [of profit] rises to an asymptote, the value rate either falls to an asymptote, or first falls and then rises to an asymptote permanently below the material rate" (Laibman 2000: 274, emphases added). Kliman (2007: 133) argues that this statement "contradicts claims (1) through (3) as well as Laibman’s characterization of the 'Tracking Theorem.' If the physical [i.e. material] rate of profit rises forever, while the value rate of profit falls forever, the value rate is certainly not following the trend of the physical [i.e. material] rate, not even eventually."

In the same paper, Laibman claimed that Okishio's theorem was true, even though the path of the temporally determined value rate of profit can diverge forever from the path of Okishio's material rate of profit. He wrote, "If a viable technical change is made, and the real wage rate is constant, the new MATERIAL rate of profit must be higher than the old one. That is all that Okishio, or Roemer, or Foley, or I, or anyone else has ever claimed!" (Laibman 2000: 275, emphases in original). In other words, proponents of the Okishio theorem have always been talking only about how the rate of profit would behave in the imaginary special case in which input and output prices happened for some reason to be equal, never about the real-world rate of profit. Kliman and Freeman (2000: 290) suggested that this statement of Laibman's was simply "an effort to absolve the physicalist tradition of error." Okishio's theorem, they argued, has always been understood as a disproof of Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit, and Marx's law does not pertain to an imaginary special case in which input and output prices happen for some reason to be equal.

andrew-the-k 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I am in opposition to the proposal.
Laibman's writings about the New Orthodox Marxists are - in the larger scale of things - a minor part of his scholarly work.
It is not proper, in my opinion, for someone who has been a theoretical and political opponent of his to use Wikipedia to attack Laibman. That was why the page was put under a lock to begin with. Watchdog07 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My Dearest Watchdog,
Please do not use the term N__ O__ M__ in the manner you have. Although hostile critics of the Temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory have alleged that its proponents are N__ O__ M__, the allegations underlying the term N__ 0__ M__ have been made without being accompanied by supporting evidence. Proponents of the TSSI deny the allegations, pointing to the critics' lack of supporting evidence, and we regard the term N__ 0__ M___ as highly incendiary and slanderous, arguing that it impugns the integrity of our research and our findings that vindicate the internal inconsistency of Marx's value theory.
Right?
You seem to suggest that my proposed contribution, above, is an "attack" on Laibman. If you convince me of that, I'll be happy to withdraw the suggestion that it be added. But I don't see it as an attack in any way. It is, IMO, very adequately sourced and completely balanced. What specifically is an "attack" on Laibman?
andrew-the-k 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 wrote, "Laibman's writings about the [N-word equivalent] are - in the larger scale of things - a minor part of his scholarly work." I happen to think his contributions to the symposia on Okishio's theorem are a most important part of his scholarly work to date. Of course, this is a judgement call, but I am a reliable source on this matter, capable of making a commensurate judgment, unlike Watchdog07. Of course, David Laibman is also a reliable source on this matter, and I remain willing and eager to discuss this and other matters with him here in order to arrive at a neutral, accurate, properly-sourced biography of him. andrew-the-k 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)




[edit] Kliman unlimited

The discussion continues also on the Paul Bairoch talk page User:Jurriaan 23:19 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Private e-mail correspondence removed

After seeing this page discussed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, I have removed the text of off-wiki e-mails from this page. No useful purpose is served by quoting such e-mails and they are not to be restored. I have also removed a number of subsequent threads dealing with such e-mails and in which various contributors say hateful things about each other in violation of a whole series of Wikipedia policies and serving no reasonable collaborative purpose. The material should not be restored either. Newyorkbrad 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from David Laibman

Arguments about the validity or lack thereof of claims regarding Laibman's view of the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) are *irrelevant* in this article. It is not the *truth* of various statements by TSSI supporters that is at issue here. At issue is the *appropriateness* of placing them in this stub biography. TSSI supporters should debate with Laibman in their own published articles and books. Their issues are not central to Laibman's overall life and work, and have no place in a brief biographical statement about him. Posted by User:Jurriaan 18 August 2007 11:16 (UTC)

I think that this request by the subject of the bio should be considered in light of WP:BLP. It is important that a biography not place undue weight on a particular aspect of the subject's life. I hereby volunteer to take a look at this and make some suggestions for resolution on this page. Sunray 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the article and the material on TSSI. I think that its inclusion in the article, all things considered, would give it undue weight. In order to include it, we would logically have to have a section on Laibman's publications as a whole. I'm doubtful that this would be within the scope of the article; nor would it meet guidelines on notability. Sunray 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)