This is a reply to Ajit's (3981) and Steve K's (3984) On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote: > Steve Keen wrote: > > > Thanks Fred, > > > > Yes it is proportionality in the strict sense of the word, but it is no > > longer Marx's theory in the strict sense of the word. > > _________________ > > No it is not proportional Setve! Fred is entirely wrong. And he is wrong because > he does his mathematics upside down. He first "defines" > > S = m.Ls (here m is supposed to be "given" but unknown, and Ls is definitely an > unknown, otherwise he will not need his other two equations. And from this he > keeps claiming that his S is proportional to Ls with the proportionality factor > m). Now since his Ls is unknown, he defines Ls as > > Ls = (L - Ln), now in this equation L is supposed to be known but Ln is still > unknown. Therefore, he goes for his third equation where Ln is defined as > > Ln = V/m, where V is supposed to be known and m is the "given unknown". So > ultimately what his S turns out to be? > > S = (m.L - V), as you have correctly put in your later part of the post as > "Surplus is an unobservable number times L, minus workers' wages?" > > Therefore, contrary to Fred's claim S is not proportional to anything with the > proportionality factor m. Cheers, ajit sinha Ajit, it is you who "does his mathematics upside down"; or rather your summary of the logic of my interpretation of Marx's theory is the OPPOSITE of what I have argued, in several articles and many OPEL posts. My interpretation (truncated) is the following: First, surplus-value is derived as: (1) S = mL - V Then, because Ln is defined as V/m and Ls is defined as L - Ln, equation (1) implies: (2) S = m Ls In other words, equation (2) is derived from equation (1), not the other way around. Equation (1) does NOT mean that S is not proportional to Ls. Rather, it means that S is not proportional to L. This is how Steve originally expressed his criticism of my interpretation, but it is in fact not a criticism, because I never argued that S is proportional to L; only that S is proportional to Ls. Equation (1) is not an argument against equation (2), as Ajit and Steve suggest. Rather, equation (2) is derived from equation (1). Thus, I argue that, according to my interpretation, S is clearly proportional to Ls. No problem. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST