Hi Julio, I am on my way out the door to San Diego and the ASSAs. I will respond to your questions when I have time. In the meantime, please read my posts and two recent papers in the Real World Economics Review, which are linked in my Economist's View post, which is linked my pen-l post this morning.
Thanks, Fred On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred wrote: > > > both of these orthodox versions are based on marginal > > productivity theory. > > Hi Fred, > > I'm puzzled by this. Can you summarize quickly what you mean > specifically by "marginal productivity theory" or, at least, the part > of it you object? Is it (1) the theory that there's a correspondence > between the marginal product (revenue) of an input and its market > price? Or is it (2) the more basic notion that a quantitative > correspondence between outputs and productive inputs (means of > production and labor power) can be established in general? How does > this theory (1 and/or 2) exclude the notion that distribution is > determined by the "surplus labor of workers"? > > So you see where I'm coming from on this: I think 2 is self evident. > And I don't have a problem with 1 either, provided the levels of > abstraction are duly sorted out. I don't see how 1 and/or 2 are > mutually exclusive of surplus value as the source of all non-labor or > property income. I don't see how either 1 and/or 2 is incompatible > with class struggle and capitalist competition in the output and input > markets. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
