Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 09:13:27 EDT

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> Is not R in Sraffa's theory the maximun rate of profit? If so, it is a
> ratio or quotient between two "things" that must have some (physical)
> dimension.
> For instance, in Marxian theory, the rates of profit and surplus value are
> also quotients. They have no dimension but are the ratios of quantities of
> labour or money (measured in hours or euros).

Hi Diego,

At the Maximum Rate of Profit, V is not a ratio of two things. Indeed,
since V = 0 (I can hear a sigh from long-time listmembers) , it has no
physical dimension whatsoever.

Where there is a Maximum Rate of Profit, concepts and categories such as
necessary labor time, surplus labor time,  paid labor time, wage-labor,
and surplus value have no meaning.

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Previous message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• In reply to: Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Next in thread: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT