Roemer on exploitation (continued)
==
1. As noted last time, classical Marxism involves the assumption that
all capitalists and no workers are exploiters, while all workers and no
capitalists are exploited. Roemer calls this the 'Class-Exploitation
Correspondence
an additional point, in an effort to attain rapproachement with
Allin: from what I've read, Allin is not saying that there's a
100% correlation between values and prices. It might be argued
that a 97% correlation (say) is enough to satisfy Allin's
assertions of value/price connection *and* my
Jim Devine initiated this exchange with the claim that my argument
concerning the relative significance of Walrasian-type general
equilibrium models and Marx's labor theory of value contained a
"contradiction." When I negated this claim by referring to a
distinction made explicitly in my
Roemer on exploitation (continued)
==
1. As noted last time, classical Marxism involves the assumption that
all capitalists and no workers are exploiters, while all workers and no
capitalists are exploited. Roemer calls this the 'Class-Exploitation
Correspondence
Peter,
I agree that putting everything in terms of rates of
change really is preferable, especially on the price side.
I am not sure what happens then about the impact on real
interest rates of an increase in the rate of inflation.
However, in the simple (-minded) pure theory static
First of all I want to say something about myself. I'm a Jesuit
priest studying economics in preparation of work at our
institute for social studies here in Munich. For already some
months now I have been lurking on pen-l, very happy for having
found a forum of progressive economic thought
FOLLOWING IS PROGRAM INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION FORM FOR URPE AT ASSA.
PLEASE SEND ALL REGISTRATIONS BY SNAIL MAIL.
CALL FOR PAPERS: URPE AT ASSA
WASHINGTON, DC
6-8 JANUARY 1995
PROGRAM INFORMATION
On Mon, 21 Mar 1994 16:24:51 -0800 Allin said:
This is strictly tangential to my "LTV Defense" postings, but I'm
afraid I can't resist rising to Jim Devine's bait (3/21/94). Jim says
that while my LTV stuff is "interesting," and possibly even right,
nonetheless it is "not Marx". Well, at one
Jim Devine initiated this exchange with the claim that my argument
concerning the relative significance of Walrasian-type general
equilibrium models and Marx's labor theory of value contained a
"contradiction." When I negated this claim by referring to a
distinction made explicitly in my
