From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 14:06:58 EDT
Just to clarify quickly. Ajit, you write: "[Ricardo] found that the effect on the money commodity of a change in wages implies that even if the net output has been kept constant in physical terms a change in its distribution between wages and profits could very well change its size when measured in... money terms"? Now you don't deny that this change in size depends on the assumption that money is not only a commodity but a commodity the production of which should yield the average rate of profit enjoyed in most branches of commodity production. This is why I have asked you to specify all the assumptions that are being made about the money commodity if the curious effects that you yourself mention above are to obtain. What must money be like if this curious effect can obtain? You have not even attempted to answer this question. As for your criticism of the infinite regress in which TSS is trapped, do note that Freeman anticipates your criticism in the very volume from which the above quote from you is taken. See Freeman on pp. 103-104 in Westra and Zuege. I won't type out all of it for you as I suppose you have the volume. Carchedi also wrote a reply in Frontiers of Political Economy. But since you must have Freeman in front of you, why not start there? What is wrong with his response? Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT