> >Cmon Justin, you spent years thinking through value theory, and you >have very strong opinions. In fact one could easily have the >impression that you think value theorists are desperate and inward >turning.
True, I did, and I came to certain conclusions, expressed here and in my published work. I also don't read much if any philosophy of mind any more, having made up my mind about certain things I thought I';d worked though. > >Well these are all debates we had on LBO long before all the >published critiques by Glick, Dumenil and others. You were then on >LBO; check the archive. We had this argument. I'm not sure we are much further along. > >Upon first reading, I was saying very loudly and in no uncertain >terms that Brenner was wrong to make competition the explanatorily >fundamental variable; I think you misread Brenner. It is a common mistake, but it is still a mistake. Profitability is the f.v. for Brenner, in a competitive context. Right, Bob? >I said then that Brenner had no theory of why effective demand had >proven insufficient for the realization of commodities at value. He >won't take the underconsumption line from Bauer to Sweezy to Robinson >to Devine. You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100% of the production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be produced cheaper, but the firms who invested in the oldertechnmologies have these huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake back. >>I'm going to go on thinking that until something large hits me on >>the head. > >How will you know when you have been so hit? > > When, as they say, the house falls around my ears. I do read a bit in theare, NLR, MR, D&S, , S&S, maybe someone will say something that changes my mind. It has happened before. jks _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
