Re: Surplus Value or Profit

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar:

Alright, now that it has been established that your critique
is illogical, what's left would be to deal with mine and
others' conciliatory view of Keynes' modelling.  Unlike your
own obvious non-sequitur however, vagueness in conclusion is
usually salvageable and doesn't make the entire discourse
incoherent.  If you don't think so, you have to come up with
another set of arguments entirely.  But I've lost interest
and like to leave this thread on the agreement that the GT is
a work in progress and not a Holy Writ.

John V


----- Original Message -----
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gunnar_T=F3masson?=
<gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>,
    "Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:06:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Surplus Value or Profit


>
> Gunnar:
>
> With all due respect, but I would suggest that it takes
more
> than "a brief cursory look at Chapters 1 - 6" to argue the
> supposed incoherence of Keynes' GT.

*****
John, you are not good at reading between the lines - I am
advising Bruce
that, unless he straightens me out and identifies the
passages in Chs. 1-6
in which he claims that Keynes had "already" explained that
part of final
demand was financed through new credit creation, I submit
that his claim to
that effect is without foundation in fact.
*****

> Then you probably would discover that Keynes had a specific
> motive for putting A1 (the payments *including profits* to
> other entrepreneurs) within the domain of user costs.  And
> that he explicitly prohibits the concept of U=0.

*****
Ditto for your argument - unless you can point to specific
passages in Chs.
1-6 which support your reading of the 'probable' case made by
Keynes, your
argument cannot be taken seriously.
*****

>   Your argument hinges on U=0 and on a static
interpretation
> of the model.  As someone else remarked already, profits
(GT
> congruous) are determined in the *redistribution* of income
> and not in its initial distribution.  Hence your argument
> falls apart from within.

*****
Ditto.
*****

>
> John V
>
>