Re: Re: Re: Re: : Value talk

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Cmon Justin, you spent years thinking through value theory, and you
> have very strong opinions. In fact one could easily have the
> impression that you think value theorists are desperate and inward
> turning.

True, I did, and I came to certain conclusions, expressed here and in my
published work. I also don't read much if any philosophy of mind any more,
having made up my mind about certain things I thought I';d worked though.


> Well these are all debates we had on LBO long before all the
> published critiques by Glick, Dumenil and others.  You were then on
> LBO; check the archive. We had this argument.

I'm not sure we are much further along.

> Upon first reading, I was saying very loudly and in no uncertain
> terms that Brenner was wrong to make competition the explanatorily
> fundamental variable;

I think you misread Brenner. It is a common mistake, but it is still a
mistake. Profitability is the f.v. for Brenner, in a competitive context.
Right, Bob?


> I said then that Brenner had no theory of why effective demand had
> proven insufficient for the realization of commodities at value. He
> won't take the underconsumption line from Bauer to Sweezy to Robinson
> to Devine.

You still don't get it. Even if there is enough demand takes up 100% of the
production, the profitability drops because the stuff can be produced
cheaper, but the firms who invested in the oldertechnmologies have these
huge sunk costs taht they cannot nake back.

> > I'm going to go on thinking that until something large hits me on
> > the head.
>
> How will you know when you have been so hit?

When, as they say, the house falls around my ears. I do read a bit in
theare, NLR, MR, D&S, , S&S, maybe someone will say something that changes
my mind. It has happened before.

jks

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx