Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 12:42:50 EDT 

Hi Paul,

I wrote ' Exchange is a value conserving process. Yes, but surplus value
occurs through, inter alia, exchange! Oh dear, here is a contradiction.
So I
can 'match' the difficulty of your 'unitary rotation operator' with the
blatant, yet true (dialectical), contradiction that surplus value must
occur both within and without the sphere of exchange.'

And you replied. 'Why? Surplus value is just the necessary expression of
there being a net product outside of exchange.'
 

I now reply (too briefly):

Your view sounds pretty much like the general 'surplus approach' view.
The problem is that, if the inputs have been paid for (M-C), then why
doesn't their cost sum to the cost of the output (C-M). Why would inputs
be sold at a value less than that which they produce, in a situation of
free exchange?

Many thanks
Andy

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT