Re: Marxist economics

["John R. Ernst" <ernst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

Khalil takes the field of ecnomics as he finds it
and goes from there.  The "silver lining" is that
he shows, intentionally or not, that the interpretation
of value goes nowhere.  For that, we owe him.

Regards,

John

On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


>
>On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, John R. Ernst wrote:
>
>> Not to worry so much.  My old classmate, Khalil, is forced to use what I

>> call the "embodied" labor theory of value.  In that theory, the social
>> values of commodities are assumed to move harmlessly toward their
>> individual values as economists hum the magic work -- "Competition."  I
>> am not sure for how long they must do this for the two concepts to
>> coincide quantitatively, but let me assure you they have been doing it
>> for some time.
>
>       Is this some `Strange Attractor' effect?  :>
>
>
>> To get to Khalil's point, you must also assume that capital inputs
>> increase faster that outputs as productivity increases.  This may be
>> true as capitalism moves from manufacture to large scale industry but,
>> as Marx notes, it is not true in capitalism itself.
>>
>> Kahlil does show, intentionally or not, that the simple way of
>> intrepretating the concept of value can quickly become the source of
>> stupidity.
>
>       One of the reasons I'm not in a hurry to write any books is that I
>wouldn't want to be caught publicly championing such crudity -- or is
>there some silver lining I've missed here?
>
>
>+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>     PGP Public Key
available. |
>| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html
  |
>+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------