Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:4370]:
> The "equilibrium condition" of which Fred speaks therefore does not exist.
> There is a balance condition in the *simple* reproduction schema, that all
> surplus-value is spent on the output of Dept. II (not III). [...]
So Marx didn't use the expression "equilibrium condition". So what? He
didn't use the expression "non-equilibrium economics" (or "disequilibrium
economics") to refer to his theory either, did he? Should this mean
that the title of the Carchedi/Freeman ed. book should be revised?
In solidarity, Jerry