Hallo Rakesh In #4555 you write: So Julian are you all arguing that profit rate equalisation is not a real tendency which can be studied in the abstract? Absolutely not denying that it is a real tendency... But capital is mobile and labor power can be rapidly moved; this gives a real foundation for the equalisation of profit rates. However, Marx himself however refers to an equalisation of ever renewed inequalities; he allows for certain capitals to drop out of the competition process altogether. Why does Marx's analysis of the equalisation tendency in itself seem then to lead you all to think that Marx thought it ever operated in pure form? I don't assert this about Marx and I'm not sure that F&M do either -- though it is true that they complain about his adopting strict equalisation in his work on transformation from values to prices On the subject of your iterative solution you say the uniform profit rate would have to be initially determined I would ask -- and here I go beyond expounding F&M -- what you mean by initially. My view is that what (individual) capitalists do (in terms of adopting new technologies, and/or cracking the whip over their workers, and many other things) determines at one and the same time both the total surplus value and profit -- and hence the general rate of profit -- and the share which the individual capitalist receives from that total -- and hence the individual rate of profit. What say you? This reminds me that Chris Arthur was musing on the significance of the general rate of profit several months back: Chris, if you're lurking on these exchanges, do you have any further thoughts on this? Regards, Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST