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.
Last year we had a discussion on the subject of "s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?". In that thread Simon and Cyrus claimed that one can not calculate the rate of surplus value for a firm or an industry. Rather, they argued, it is a rate which expresses an aggregate or macro relationship. Yet the members who took this position thought that s/v could be empirically calculated for an individual national economy. This leads me to the question: is it legitimate -- from your perspectives -- to calculate the rate of surplus value in Puerto Rico? Recall that Edward N. Wolff attempted such an empirical estimation in the 1970s. Yet, isn't Puerto Rico a *colony* of the USA? How is it possible to calculate the rate of surplus value of a colony independently of a calculation of the rate of surplus value in the imperial nation? If we attempt such a calculation anyway, don't we obscure the transfer of surplus value in the form of surplus profits from the colony? In solidarity, Jerry
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value? creativity, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value? creativity, Ian Hunt Mon 18 Apr 2005, 05:41 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value? creativity, Rakesh Bhandari Mon 18 Apr 2005, 14:59 GMT
- [OPE-L] the scope and emphasis of working-class studies, Gerald_A_Levy Mon 18 Apr 2005, 13:50 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] the scope and emphasis of working-class studies, Rakesh Bhandari Mon 18 Apr 2005, 14:53 GMT