I thank Ken Hanley for his thoughtful and interesting post. I
think we are getting somewhere.
Ken: I see that I have indeed misunderstood your remarks.
However, you still seem to commit a petitio since in reply you
insist that what you identify as a fallacy is such when that is
part of the
Hanly
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof
regarding
surplus value and profit
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough
in the
power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23984] Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof
regarding
surplus value and profit
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough
in the
power
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 March 2002 01:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23950] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and
profit
. So, let's call a halt to
this.
sorry; ifI could withdraw my previous reply to it I
If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy.
Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of
labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and
1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units,
and a negative net product of A,
Let's suppose that X claims that if people believe strongly enough in the
power of the deity Shazam that enemy bullets will not harm them when they
go into battle. I point out that as a matter of fact lots of believers in
Shazam have been killed by enemy bullets in battle. A defender of Shazam
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
real world.
The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus.
The fake attempts to show that
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism by now?
Doug
This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx --
his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what
people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous
to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint.
Andrew Kliman
That's
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Doug wrote:
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism by now?
Dear Doug:
By your reaction, you are
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not
mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows
that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that
he is trying to suppress Marx.
Your accusation could never be proven, but
Resende Manuel wrote:
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Doug wrote:
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism by now?
Dear Doug:
By
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the
real world.
ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus.
The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical
things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some,
deficits of others. There cannot be
: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be
living under socialism
Of Justin
Schwartz
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of
Marx --
his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what
world.
Andrew Kliman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Resende
Manuel
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23907] Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re garding
surplusvalue and profit
Drewk wrote
Perelman
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that
does not
mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example,
Justin knows
that I
Andrew writes:
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the
same thing in this context.
ok
I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is
indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass
of
surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical
-
From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value
and profit
I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated
attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide
I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The
surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially
and historically determined) means of subsistence. My understanding is
that the time required to produce the means of subsistence is necessary
labor time.
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify.
--mbs
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to
listen to the silence.
Andrew Kliman
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding
surplus
value and profit
Drewk wrote:
The silence about this issue is deafening.
What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx
13, 2002 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Andrew writes:
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the
same thing in this context.
ok
I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he
says
Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone
agrees on.
No, I actually don't, since, as you say:
My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually
based on methodological issues, philosophical
Mat Forstater wrote:
I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus.
The surplus product is production over and above production of the
(socially and historically determined) means of subsistence.
Yes, according to one interpretation of Marx, but not others. But
let's stick with
I am just trying to get Marx's basic vision.
Does this sound right?
By c and v, I mean the money sums laid out as constant and variable capital
The cost price (c+v) of each commodity drops. It gives the first
moving capitalist an immediate advantage, and greater ability to all
capitals to
Drewk, I'll have to admit I have perused a couple of your papers on the
web and I'm interested in understanding your argument(s). I have looked
at some of your and your colleagues stuff in the past but I have not
really devoted myself to a careful study. I am always interested in
anything that
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I
shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel
or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it):
And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption
of classical natural or equilibrium
On 2002.03.14 02:32 AM, Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew writes:
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the
same thing in this context.
ok
I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is
indeed some rough sense in which we can say
Mat: I have perused a couple of your papers on the web
The published stuff is usually better in order to gain a basic
understanding of the issues from the ground up. For economists
who understand the technicalities of some of the other
interpretations, the piece I'd recommend one reads first
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus
value and
profit
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I
shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or
Manuel
or Gary or Mat has
Please, if anyone wants to carry on with this discussion, let's do it off
list.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:10:13PM -0500, Drewk wrote:
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered.
If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly:
Andrew,
If you are going to address me, please use my name at some point.
Please do not use the passive voice as Jim D in replying to one of
claims. It has been asserted that... For example, you could have
said I'm not sure what
In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Ernst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and
perhaps misses what might be important.
Among other things you wrote:
Not getting value theory right has inhibited just
Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx.
Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx..
Andrew Kliman
I do not see how these identities were arrived at. As general
statements, I cannot imagine anything more absurd.
At the very least, it seems to me that such
Drewk wrote:
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered.
If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot.
That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my
kill file who got too insistent that
I agree with Carrol about the absurdity about expecting that all
challenges must be answered, but I hope that the whole thread has stopped.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:18:44PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
Drewk wrote:
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug:
I am still waiting for my questions
All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs
and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that
surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive
profit.
This is proved for even for economies without joint production,
that are able to reproduce
Michael writes:
One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value.
Marx did offer one simple proof of the role of surplus value in the
creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a
whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it
39 matches
Mail list logo
