> Gil > --- > Paul might have said this, but Marx certainly didn't, as any reading > of Capital, Volume III, Ch. 21 will make clear. For example: "The > form of lending results from capital's characteristic here of > emerging as a commodity, or in other words, it results from the fact > that money as capital becomes a commodity." In speaking of supply > and demand for interest capital I only paraphrased Marx's analysis in > the last part of that chapter. > > Paul > ---- > Marx's analysis here is inadequate, and his normal very strict > logical use of terms becomes sloppy. I made a long posting > on the OPE list a month or so back (24th September) using > arguments from type theory to show this. You must have seen > that posting so why not comment on that. I'll tell you why I haven't yet: because Mike Lebowitz asked us in the interest of group discipline (on OPE-L) not to continue with a specialized line of dialogue. In the interest of group discipline, I complied, though I was far from satisfied with the state of discussion. That is why I'm a bit perturbed with Allen taking the liberty of cross-posting my PEN-L comments on this topic to OPE-L. I'm on both lists; if I wanted the comments sent to both lists I would have done so. In any case, I'll dig out your comments and respond to them when I can. Gil Skillman
