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.
Hi Phil. You wrote: > If money is an equivalent then there must be an equality such as: > the value of the procuded commodity = the value of the money it sells for > Price value deviations are therefore impossible. This is the case only in the aggregate abstracting from temporal and spatial deviations. > Surplus value (in hours) is > equal to profit in dollars times the value of money (hours per dollar). > There can be therefore no transfer of surplus value among capitalist > firms. Again, this is an equality that only holds in the aggregate. If we look at individual firms and competition, we can observe a different process at work, e.g. the transfer of surplus value through rent and, with it, a major reason for technological change by individual firms. I would suggest, also, that the effect of advertising can be analyzed through the subject of rent. > In view of this, why should I read Volume III? You want me to give away the whole plot? In solidarity, Jerry
- (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour and the Two Department Model, (continued)
- (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour and the Two Department Model, gerald_a_levy Sat 22 Nov 2003, 14:20 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour and the Two Department Model, Phil Dunn Sun 23 Nov 2003, 07:40 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour, gerald_a_levy Sun 23 Nov 2003, 14:41 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour, Philip Dunn Mon 24 Nov 2003, 12:46 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour, gerald_a_levy Mon 24 Nov 2003, 14:45 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour, Philip Dunn Mon 24 Nov 2003, 18:33 GMT
- (OPE-L) value, money, and the exchange of equivalents, gerald_a_levy Tue 25 Nov 2003, 14:08 GMT