Re: Surplus Value or Profit

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am inserting some comments below.

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gunnar T¢masson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 3:14 PM
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
>
>