IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Fred, I don't really understand this point. I know you're busy now, but could you direct me to a particular paper in which you develop this argument? Thanks, Gil >There is no contradiction between equations (2) and (4) if equation (2) is >understood to apply to the economy as a whole (i.e. to capital in >general), as I have argued in several papers. Equation (2) (or an >equation similar to it in my papers) determines the total amount of >surplus-value and the rate of profit, which then is taken as given in >the determination of individual prices of production in equation (4). > >Comradely, >Fred > >
- [OPE-L:3557] Re: Re: Non-constant returns to scale and the LTV, Gil Skillman Tue 04 Jul 2000, 00:35 GMT
- [OPE-L:3555] Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Mon 03 Jul 2000, 20:40 GMT
- [OPE-L:3556] Postscript to 3555, Gil Skillman Mon 03 Jul 2000, 21:17 GMT
- [OPE-L:3573] Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Fred B. Moseley Fri 07 Jul 2000, 13:58 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:3574] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Fri 07 Jul 2000, 15:11 GMT
- [OPE-L:3577] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Fred B. Moseley Mon 10 Jul 2000, 14:28 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:3589] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Wed 26 Jul 2000, 23:28 GMT
- [OPE-L:3554] Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Mon 03 Jul 2000, 18:03 GMT
- [OPE-L:3553] Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Paul Cockshott Mon 03 Jul 2000, 09:38 GMT