[ show plain text ]
Riccardo wrote in [2406]
At 12.36 24/02/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Ernesto there are two ways out of your paradox (two ways that to me are
>only one):
>
>(i) no exploitation in the Marxian sense if you starts from prices of
>production; to have exploitation you must reason with the labour theory of
>value;
Well, then assume the organic comosition of capital is uniform. You have
relative labour values that coincide with production prices. Is there
exploitation?
>
>(ii) perfect equilibrium with no profits is a circular flow which is
>definitely not capitalism; this circular flow is regularly broken by
>innovation, and innovation is driven by class struggle at the point of
>production.
When Samuelson says "zero profits" he means that a normal "profit",
remunerating a director's work, is included in costs. But even if you assume
that the director's wage is nil, the result does not change. A zero profit
economy is not capitalist? Well, Samuelson would agrre. He could say that
capitalism is an invention by Marx. In reality there are only "market
economies".
The introduction of innovation complicates the picture but reinforces
Samuelson's point in the way Schumpetr's would do. Profit does not arises
from exploitation, but by the eroic entrepreneur's activity!
>
>The two ways out are one because the important point of the LTV is not to
>deduce prices of production, but to ground innovation in a macro-micro
>class based theory of innovation.
>
comradely
Ernesto
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:47 EDT