>If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy.
>Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of
>labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and
>1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units,
>and a negative net product of
>I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly:
Andrew,
If you are going to address me, please use my name at some point.
Please do not use the passive voice as Jim D in replying to one of
claims. "It has been asserted that..." For example, you could have
said "I'm not sure what
Mat: "I have perused a couple of your papers on the web"
The published stuff is usually better in order to gain a basic
understanding of the issues from the ground up. For economists
who understand the technicalities of some of the other
interpretations, the piece I'd recommend one reads first
Drewk, I'll have to admit I have perused a couple of your papers on the
web and I'm interested in understanding your argument(s). I have looked
at some of your and your colleagues stuff in the past but I have not
really devoted myself to a careful study. I am always interested in
anything that c
I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The
surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially
and historically determined) means of subsistence. My understanding is
that the time required to produce the means of subsistence is necessary
labor time.
>I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
>real world.
ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus.
>
>The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
>things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
>deficits of others. There cannot
Drewk wrote:
>The silence about this issue is deafening.
>
>What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
>listen to the silence.
Doug wrote:
>Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
>living under socialism by now?
Dear Doug:
By your reaction, you ar
Drewk wrote:
>The silence about this issue is deafening.
>
>What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
>listen to the silence.
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism by now?
Doug
