Title: RE: [PEN-L:31709] Sweezy's occ\Shaikh
Paul A writes:
Jim: I would love to know what you think of Shaikh and Tonak's book. I plan on absorbing more of it (it can be slow going for the mathematicly impaired) but seems to be extremely relevant to your interests. It is a good example
Devine, James wrote:
RE: [PEN-L:31709] Sweezy's occ\Shaikh
Paul A writes:
Jim:
I would love to know what you think of Shaikh and Tonak's book. I plan on
absorbing more of it (it can be slow going for the mathematicly impaired)
but seems to be extremely relevant
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31728] Re: RE: Sweezy's occ\Shaikh
E. Ahmet Tonak writes:
Thanks for the appreciation for our work. It was hard work! I'd like to address Jim's objection to our inclusion of the wages of unproductive labor should be included as a positive number in the numerator of the rate
With the difficulties of unproductive labor and the depreciation question
that I have been harping on, don't we have to aceept that estimates of
profit rates are merely suggestive of the underlying reality? Also, do we
accept market prices as reflection of the level of abstract labor that a
Jim Devine writes:
Shane,
you've opened up a can of worms much larger than I can stomach at this
point. Instead of trying to do so, I'll simply agree to disagree:
1) I find that Marx's theory of unproductive vs. productive labor to be
superior to other versions of that
theory (e.g., those of
