The Times of India
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
Malaysia cracks down on immigrants
AFP
KUALA LUMPUR: More than 4,500 illegal immigrants have been arrested and
7,067
squatter houses demolished in a major crackdown in Malaysia's Sabah state,
police said on Tuesday.
Most of the 3,841 immigrants
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
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor
theory
of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex
capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it
shouldn't
even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems.
This
is
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
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002:
RELEASED TODAY: From 1999 to 2000, multifactor productivity rose 1.9
percent in the private business sector and 1.8 percent in the private
nonfarm business sector, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
Multifactor productivity
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
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
by Gil Skillman
12 March 2002 21:53 UTC
Charles, you write
CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you
reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a
necessary condition for 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.
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
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
by Gil Skillman
12 March 2002 21:53 UTC
Charles, you write
CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you
reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a
necessary condition for profit
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
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23902] RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit]
Drewk writes:
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
I don't deal in counterfactuals. Instead of diverting the issue,
why not deal with it?
Andrew Kliman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re:
I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated
attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide in a
particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I
leave aside the issue of motives.)
It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency
when one can
I appreciate Manuel Resende's post. Someone is dealing with the
issue instead of diverting. Good!
Manuel highlights a key issue that I had not: a bundle of
commodities so *ingeniously arranged* that it always corresponds
to the weighing of each component in the product (my emphasis).
Exactly.
The issue, Michael, has nothing to do with differing about what
Marx said. It has to do with false PROOFS that what he said are
logically incoherent, in error, etc. Those false proofs have been
disproved. When the disproofs are not acknowledged, when the
historical record is not corrected,
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the
same thing in this context.
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 quantity of
means of
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
On 2002.03.13 06:41 AM, "Gil Skillman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles, thanks for your post. It is entirely appropriate to demand care
in definition and usage of terms, especially in these first steps.
Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary
condition
Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone agrees on.
One person's proof is another's obfuscation, suppression, etc., as you
yourself admit. I don't know the details of the history of your
interaction with other points of view, so I don't know whether others
have totally ignored
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
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 what
political or intellectual progress exactly?
Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible
Doug Henwood wrote:
the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other
radicals? That's ridiculous.
This is a distortion of my claim. Deal with my actual claim,
which concerns the failure to acknowledge that the false proofs of
internal inconsistency and error have been disproved, the
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims.
I'll be happy to send you, or anyone else, an electronic copy upon
request. You need to be able to read math written in MSWord's
equation editor 3.
what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater
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
Marx vs. Roemer
by Gil Skillman
12 March 2002 21:46 UTC
CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment
that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary
labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument.
Gil: I
I hate to go off topic and deal with the illusionary world of prices . . .
Does anyone know where can I find FREE data on _historical_ stock market
prices? That is, for both individual stocks and variable aggregates (like DJ
Industrial average).
I know of
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
Rakesh writes
I also had written the following on which Gil did not comment:
To say that additional capital is increasingly in short supply vis a
vis the new and displaced laboring population as accumulation
progresses only means that in the course of accumulation the
primordial source of
Does anyone know where can I find FREE data on
_historical_ stock market prices? That is, for
both individual stocks and variable aggregates
(like DJ Industrial average).
I know of CRSP(http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/research/crsp/),
but they charge $1,000 for their data. Dogs.
Thanks for
from the March 13, 2002 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0313/p01s01-usec.html
Economy in sudden acceleration
The poll's economic optimism index jumped to a strongly positive
62.9 as Americans eye a rebound.
By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor
In not much
Continuing the discussion with Charles. Fast forward to...
CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, surplus
value and capital are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm
not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine
what do you expect from such a big cut in interest rates (during 2001)? It
shouldn't surpise anyone that this stimulates the economy. However, it is
notable that most of the stimulus is in housing and services and is based on
increased consumer debt. How much more can US consumers afford to see
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
Anyone listen to Ws press conference? He kept saying nucular
for nuclear. He also said commiserate
with when it seemed like he was trying to say consistent with.
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
Anyone listen to W?s press conference? He kept saying ?nucular? for
nuclear. He also said ?commiserate with? when it seemed like he was
trying to say ?consistent with?.
probably intended: commensurate with?
--ravi
Anyone listen to W's press conference? He kept saying nucular for
nuclear.
That tradition was started by Eisenhower.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Gil writes:
On the
first question, I suspect the distinction Keynes is alluding to involves
the difference between *physical* and *revenue* productivity.
OK, I get that
An
investment may lead to a new machine being built, but not necessarily to
any money being made from the use of the
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
I am about 500 PENL msgs behind in my reading, so I don't know whether
it has already been discussed, but there is something much more important
than whether Shrub can speak. Everybody has known for a long time he can't
speak English (or any other language) very well. But he HAS had the
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
The Japan Times: March 14, 2002
EDITORIAL
Thursday, March 14, 2002
JAPANESE DISTORTIONS
A demand-starved economy
By GREGORY CLARK
What do you do if you are Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and the
structural reform policies you have been advocating with tight
lips and a steely gaze are now hit
MIYACHI TATSUO
9-10, OHATI, MORIYAMA-KU
NAGOYA CITY
463-0044
JAPAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
criticism of Roemer
I don$B!G(Jt konw details of Roemer$B!G(Js argument. I only read his article
$B!H(J Anti-Hayekian manifesto$B!I(J in $B!H(J New Left Review 211/1995) . But
fundamental thought of
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
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly:
Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around
equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I
would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol.
III if I had time.) Such prices have
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.
Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx.
Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx..
Andrew Kliman
I don't have much energy for disputes now. A recent basketball injury has
cause the loss of a wisdom tooth today. Please, I think that Mat is
correct. The idea of marxists intentionally supressing marxism does not
seem realistic to me. There are marxists whose marxism seems ill-founded to
me
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
March 13, 2002
News Release
For more information:
Call John Rowntree, (916) 446-1758
P.O. Box 160406 Sacramento, CA 95816
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.marxistschool.org
Arline and Jim Prigoff to Deliver Presentation on the World Social Forum at
the Marxist School of Sacramento
Arline and Jim Prigoff
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
[Was: Re PEN-L 23950, Re: Marx's proof regarding...]
Michael writes, among other things,
Also, the debate between Charles and Gil does not seem to be going
anywhere.
What? As you know, Michael, I've had plenty of experience with PEN-L debates
that weren't going anywhere (and, being the
In this, Roemer remains in the sphere of ownership, and forgets the sphere
of production. For producing profits material production must be presumed.
And for production, many firms must interact with each other and exchange
material, means of production, or intermediate commodities. Can coupon
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.
Andrew, I haven't the energy or inclination to debate with you or Charles on
the matter. I've read your work
60 matches
Mail list logo
