Re: Re: Re: a profound comment on the "transformationproblem"

["Fabian Balardini" <balardini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What about his discussion of the falling r? Does he also take a single/simulataneist system approach or he mentions temporality?
--

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:54:43   Jim Devine wrote:
>At 04:37 PM 9/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>Jim,
>>I don't have the book yet and will not be able to get it probably for a
>>while, so could you please comment or reproduce Andrews' discussion (main
>>points or how his proposed solution differ or reproduces other previous
>>solutions) of the transformation problem.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Fabian
>
>His main point seems to be a relatively common-sense explanation of the
>"solution" to the "transformation problem" that Fred Moseley advocates. See
>the latter's article in the current _Review of Radical Political Economics_
>or in the book he edited, _Marx's Method in Capital_. It's a very simple
>solution, basically saying that there's no problem at all, since prices and
>values normally differ, but total prices = total value, while total
>property income = total surplus-value.
>
>Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com