[OPE-L:3160] Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 and Luxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)

• Next message: Michael Williams: "[OPE-L:3161] RE: Simple Commodity Production"
• Previous message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3159] Re: Re: Fwd: Re: RE: starting points"
• In reply to: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3157] Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 and Luxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Next in thread: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3163] Re: Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 andLuxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Reply: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3163] Re: Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 andLuxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ show plain text ]

Dear Andrew,

I gather from the fact that you don't mention money capital in the
assumptions of your example that you assume that it turns over infinitely
fast?

Duncan
Duncan K. Foley
Leo Model Professor
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212)-229-5906
messages: (212)-229-5717
fax: (212)-229-5724
e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd

• Next message: Michael Williams: "[OPE-L:3161] RE: Simple Commodity Production"
• Previous message: Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3159] Re: Re: Fwd: Re: RE: starting points"
• In reply to: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3157] Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 and Luxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Next in thread: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3163] Re: Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 andLuxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Reply: Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3163] Re: Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need 1 andLuxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT