(OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 08:58:53 EST

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Roberto Veneziani article on TSS (and article by Simon on ....)"
• Previous message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Roberto Veneziani article on TSS (and article by Simon on ....)"
• In reply to: Paul Cockshott: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?"
• Maybe reply: Paul Cockshott: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Paul C wrote:

1. A contribution due to higher exploitation in that sector
2. A contribution due to sales of the product at a price above
   its value.
It is relatively easy, using i/o tables, to separate out these
two factors.
------------------------

If it is possible to show with an "embodied labor" perspective
and empirical data (in this case, from input-output tables)
sectoral rates of exploitation,  the extent to which commodities
are sold above or below their value, and the transfers of  surplus
value among firms, then this might be claimed as a significant
advantage of that (i.e. "embodied labor") perspective.  Or, is
it?

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: (OPE-L) Roberto Veneziani article on TSS (and article by Simon on ....)"
• Previous message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Roberto Veneziani article on TSS (and article by Simon on ....)"
• In reply to: Paul Cockshott: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?"
• Maybe reply: Paul Cockshott: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 07 2004 - 00:00:00 EST