[ show plain text ]
Oops just a minor clarification:
>Now another advantage of dropping this assumption of price=value is that
>while we can agree that the price at which the inputs were bought is
>determined by the value produced in the previous period
I don't mean here that the individual inputs were bought at their
individual values; rather total input prices is determined by the total
value produced in the previous period. Again this is true assuming the
LTV.; it is not a proof of the LTV.
Sorry. And don't worry everyone, very soon I won't be able to flood the
list anymore. But had to take advantage of the opportunity while I could.
At any rate, I have learned a lot about Marx from considering the various
interpretations and objections. And I will have to learn at some later
date about how dropping the assumption of constant or decreasing returns
affects neo classical and Marxian price theory. Thanks Gil for raising the
question.
All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT