Re: Surplus Value or Profit - Keynes on Income

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:21:44 -0500, Gunnar Tómasson
<gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ... at issue is the question whether "the value of output",
>and hence "income", must be uniquely related to the value
>of factor inputs or factor "income"?

>I contend that the answer is YES - and see neither rhyme
>nor reason in supposing the answer to be NO:

As always, you are playing word games.  The question of
whether the value of output must equal income is not
the point at issue ... the question of whether the value
of factor INPUTS DETERMINES the value of outputs except
for "final demand inflation" (whatever that is) is the
point at issue.

The identification of what you are calling the value
of factor inputs, which from previous emails appears
to be factor payments exclusive of profits, with
income, follows from FIRST identifying payments to
factor inputs exclusive of profit with the value
of output, and THEN jumping into the General Theory,
even though that _a priori_ premise is more comfortable
with the Washington Consensus than with the General
Theory that was intended as a critique of the earlier
incarnation of the Washington Consensus, which is to
say Kaynes' "Treasury View".

The decision to identify the Washington Consensus with
the General Theory is an entirely seperate question,
and unlike your decision to misread the General Theory
itself, this second decision cannot be laid at the feet
of Keynes frequently obscure prose.


Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx