I wrote:
>>My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It
was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall
and output prices stay constant, profits rise.<<
Drewk writes:
>Right, Jim. But if *output* prices (per unit of output) fall and
*input* prices stay constant ....
>And the latter must always be the case *before* the former can be
the case. That's important.
>E.g., the price of machines falls during period t. ...<
but I made no reference to machines. I had written:
>> "But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices
fall, the first thing to happen would be a rise in the rate of
profit (likely temporary)."<<
Jim
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, (continued)
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:34 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:40 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Fri 13 Jun 2003, 21:42 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Sat 14 Jun 2003, 04:50 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Sat 14 Jun 2003, 13:45 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Sat 14 Jun 2003, 17:06 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Tom Walker Sat 14 Jun 2003, 15:18 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Devine, James Sat 14 Jun 2003, 17:39 GMT
- Re: Falsifiability and the law of value, Drewk Sat 14 Jun 2003, 18:35 GMT