On Wed, 23 Mar 1994 08:46:30 -0800 Allin said:
(quoting me)
>price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
>class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)
>
(he then comments)
>Where is this idea coming from? I would have said that although
>feudal explo
On Wed, 23 Mar 1994 08:46:30 -0800 Allin said:
(quoting me)
>price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
>class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)
>
(he then comments)
>Where is this idea coming from? I would have said that although
>feudal explo
Not wanting to get myself any deeper into hot water, I'll
respond to just one of Jim Devine's points. I don't
really get the idea that (quote)
price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)
Elsewhere Jim mak
Not wanting to get myself any deeper into hot water, I'll
respond to just one of Jim Devine's points. I don't
really get the idea that (quote)
price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)
Elsewhere Jim mak
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 ass
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 ass
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
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
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 level it is not supposed
to be "Marx" as such:
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 level it is not supposed
to be "Marx" as such:
10 matches
Mail list logo
