Hi Julio, I am back from San Diego and trying to catch up. According to marginal productivity theory, profit = MPK (or MRKP). Labor or surplus labor does not appear in this equation. Therefore, profit is determined in this theory independently of labor or surplus labor.
How do you think that this theory can be reconciled with Marx's surplus labor theory of profit? I don't see it. Have you had a chance to read my papers on marginal productivity in the Real World Economics Review? If so, what do you think of my criticisms? 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
