I haven't gotten to that...
At 05:19 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>What about his discussion of the falling r? Does he also take a
>single/simulataneist system approach or he mentions temporality?
>--
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:54:43 Jim Devine wrote:
> >At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >>Jim,
> >>I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a
> >>while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main
> >>points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous
> >>solutions) of the transformation problem.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Fabian
> >
> >His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the
> >"solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See
> >the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_
> >or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple
> >solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and
> >values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total
> >property income = total surplus-value.
> >
> >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
> >
>
>
>Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
