Re: Surplus Value or Profit

["Sean Reilly" <seanjreilly@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"the GT is a work in progress and not a Holy Writ."

I disagree.  To Keynes it was complete and that is why he published it.  If
he did not think so, then he might have named it "Toward a GT of Money,
Interest, and Employment."  But, he did not, he named it, "The General
Theory of Money, Interest, and Employment."

Sean
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vertegaal" <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gunnar T¢masson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Surplus Value or Profit


>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>