In response to Doug Henwood's point that the use of surplus-value
is important to the issue, Gil Skillman agrees:
>, and of course he's right. And Marx would have agreed, up to the
>point of insisting that in a *capitalist* society, the realization of
>surplus value via interest presupposes the
In response to Doug Henwood's point that the use of surplus-value
is important to the issue, Gil Skillman agrees:
>, and of course he's right. And Marx would have agreed, up to the
>point of insisting that in a *capitalist* society, the realization of
>surplus value via interest presupposes the
On Sun, 13 Mar 1994 23:52:00 -0800 Gil said:
>This is to continue my dialogue with Allin C. concerning the results
>he and a coauthor recently obtained, which are consistent with
>earlier work by Shaikh and others, to the effect that values diverge
>very little from prices of production in fact.
On Sun, 13 Mar 1994 23:52:00 -0800 Gil said:
>This is to continue my dialogue with Allin C. concerning the results
>he and a coauthor recently obtained, which are consistent with
>earlier work by Shaikh and others, to the effect that values diverge
>very little from prices of production in fact.
Something else that just occurred to me with respect to Allin's post.
Under conditions such as those discovered by Allin and co-author, to
the effect that labor values correlate very closely with prices of
production, the prices of production which emerge from Sraffa's
"standard system" would
Something else that just occurred to me with respect to Allin's post.
Under conditions such as those discovered by Allin and co-author, to
the effect that labor values correlate very closely with prices of
production, the prices of production which emerge from Sraffa's
"standard system" would
This is to continue my dialogue with Allin C. concerning the results
he and a coauthor recently obtained, which are consistent with
earlier work by Shaikh and others, to the effect that values diverge
very little from prices of production in fact. I am not denigrating
this work by the way, in
This is to continue my dialogue with Allin C. concerning the results
he and a coauthor recently obtained, which are consistent with
earlier work by Shaikh and others, to the effect that values diverge
very little from prices of production in fact. I am not denigrating
this work by the way, in
On Fri, 11 Mar 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in response to
my citation of Shaikh, Petrovic and Ochoa (as well as unpublished
work done by some friends and myself):
> I was initially struck by the results of Shaikh and his students, but
> believe they should be taken with several grains of salt;
On Fri, 11 Mar 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in response to
my citation of Shaikh, Petrovic and Ochoa (as well as unpublished
work done by some friends and myself):
> I was initially struck by the results of Shaikh and his students, but
> believe they should be taken with several grains of salt;
Steve Keen asked me to forward this. Voici. Gil
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 08:21:33 +1000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: marx on money
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gil's argument that money capital may lead t
> I'm not sure I understand Jim's references to Marx's
> "silliness" in assuming that prices are proportional
> to (labor) values, or to the "so-called labor theory
> of value". Shaikh has showed, by reference to both
> US and Italian input-output tables, that values and
> prices are indeed very
> I'm not sure I understand Jim's references to Marx's
> "silliness" in assuming that prices are proportional
> to (labor) values, or to the "so-called labor theory
> of value". Shaikh has showed, by reference to both
> US and Italian input-output tables, that values and
> prices are indeed very
I'm not sure I understand Jim's references to Marx's
"silliness" in assuming that prices are proportional
to (labor) values, or to the "so-called labor theory
of value". Shaikh has showed, by reference to both
US and Italian input-output tables, that values and
prices are indeed very close to pr
I'm not sure I understand Jim's references to Marx's
"silliness" in assuming that prices are proportional
to (labor) values, or to the "so-called labor theory
of value". Shaikh has showed, by reference to both
US and Italian input-output tables, that values and
prices are indeed very close to pr
Alan Isaac says:
>I hesitate to enter this debate among marxologists, but doesn't
>suggesting that such conditions are _necessary_ for the receipt
>of interest run aground against Roemer's example of interest
>emerging solely from differing rates of time preference?
>
(1) I don't do Marxology.
Alan Isaac says:
>I hesitate to enter this debate among marxologists, but doesn't
>suggesting that such conditions are _necessary_ for the receipt
>of interest run aground against Roemer's example of interest
>emerging solely from differing rates of time preference?
>
(1) I don't do Marxology.
My comment on silliness was not denying the high correlation between
prices of production and values that many have fon found. I was
referring (opaquely, I admit) to Marx's poor method of presentation.
Not only did he hope that CAPITAL could be read by ordinary workers,
but his method has spawned
My comment on silliness was not denying the high correlation between
prices of production and values that many have fon found. I was
referring (opaquely, I admit) to Marx's poor method of presentation.
Not only did he hope that CAPITAL could be read by ordinary workers,
but his method has spawned
In response to this passage by Jim,
> > (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
> > simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
> > Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the latter. Gil Skillman
> > disagrees with us.
, Doug H. write
>Jim writes:
>> Victor, thanks for the analysis of the context of the sentence quoted
>>by Marx. But there are two debates going on here:
>>
>> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
>> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
>> Here, I belie
I hesitate to enter this debate among marxologists, but doesn't
suggesting that such conditions are _necessary_ for the receipt
of interest run aground against Roemer's example of interest
emerging solely from differing rates of time preference?
--Alan G. Isaac
Origin
>Jim writes:
>> Victor, thanks for the analysis of the context of the sentence quoted
>>by Marx. But there are two debates going on here:
>>
>> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
>> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
>> Here, I belie
I hesitate to enter this debate among marxologists, but doesn't
suggesting that such conditions are _necessary_ for the receipt
of interest run aground against Roemer's example of interest
emerging solely from differing rates of time preference?
--Alan G. Isaac
Origin
Jim writes:
> Victor, thanks for the analysis of the context of the sentence
quoted > by Marx. But there are two debates going on here:
>
> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
> Here, I belie
On Sat, 5 Mar 1994 23:25:14 -0500 (EST) Doug Henwood said:
>
>On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
>
>> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
>> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
>> Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the la
On Sat, 5 Mar 1994 23:25:14 -0500 (EST) Doug Henwood said:
>
>On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
>
>> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
>> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
>> Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the la
On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
> Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the latter. Gil Skillman
> disagrees with us.
Depends on what's done
On Fri, 4 Mar 1994, Jim Devine wrote:
> (1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
> simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
> Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree: it is the latter. Gil Skillman
> disagrees with us.
Depends on what's done
Dear Jim,
A lot of debates on pen-l are foundered on misunderstandingd ogf previous
postings. So thanks for your 2 point su mmary of the areas of agreement
disagreement re use-value and money--they are entirely accurate.
Dear Jim,
A lot of debates on pen-l are foundered on misunderstandingd ogf previous
postings. So thanks for your 2 point su mmary of the areas of agreement
disagreement re use-value and money--they are entirely accurate.
Jim's reply to my comment that there were times when Marx saw use-value as
quantitative was (IMHO) correct to describe Marx as having two ways of
referring to use-value: as a thing "a by bicycle is a use-value" and
a set of objective (not subjective) qualities. He contrasted this to the
neoclassic
Jim's reply to my comment that there were times when Marx saw use-value as
quantitative was (IMHO) correct to describe Marx as having two ways of
referring to use-value: as a thing "a by bicycle is a use-value" and
a set of objective (not subjective) qualities. He contrasted this to the
neoclassic
Victor, thanks for the analysis of the context of the sentence quoted
by Marx. But there are two debates going on here:
(1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree:
Victor, thanks for the analysis of the context of the sentence quoted
by Marx. But there are two debates going on here:
(1) does money-lending lead to the creation of surplus-value or is that
simply an illusion arising from the fetishism of commodities?
Here, I believe, Steve Keen and I agree:
On Thu, 03 Mar 1994 07:35:06 +1000 Steve Keen said:
>First of all, the original quote:
>"As in the case of labour-power, the use-value of money here
>is its capacity of creating value--a value greater than it
>contains." Capital Vol 3, p. 392.
>
>It is clear from that quote that--in this context--
On Thu, 03 Mar 1994 07:35:06 +1000 Steve Keen said:
>First of all, the original quote:
>"As in the case of labour-power, the use-value of money here
>is its capacity of creating value--a value greater than it
>contains." Capital Vol 3, p. 392.
>
>It is clear from that quote that--in this context--
On March 1, Jim Devine quoted my 26 Feb posting:
"(concerning the quote from Marx about M-M')
>Re whether the analysis fits within the structure of volume
>I of capital. I would argue that it can, as I detailed beforehand,
>but that there's no way Marx (or I) argued that it is a source of
>surplu
On March 1, Jim Devine quoted my 26 Feb posting:
"(concerning the quote from Marx about M-M')
>Re whether the analysis fits within the structure of volume
>I of capital. I would argue that it can, as I detailed beforehand,
>but that there's no way Marx (or I) argued that it is a source of
>surplu
39 matches
Mail list logo
