From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 12:16:58 EST
Quoting Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK>: > Fred, > > I can only repeat that I consider the terms S&D to belong to the surface > realm of economics as expressed in market prices. It would deal with those > many concerns that fall into the examination of competition itself and > which > see market prices moving around prices of production, if I can use that > expression. > > At the levels of analysis in the three vols of capital, (despite the fact > that Marx always illustrates his points as far as it is possible, as > appropriate, given the stage of the argument he has reached), then the > problem of realisation is usually not considered as such. I simply won't > refer to this as treating S=D, its seems incorrect to me, and all that I > have read in Marx seems to me to say ' we don't start here'. > > That's it > > Cheers Paul Paul, thanks for your latest message and sorry for my delayed response (it's been a hectic week). I am happy to agree to disagree about the precise formulation of S and D, since I think we agree on my main point (don’t we?) - that Marx generally assumes no realization problem in the Volume 3 theory of the distribution of surplus-value, and therefore assumes that the total amount of surplus-value is taken as given, as determined by the prior theory of the production of surplus- value. Thanks again for the discussion. Comradely, Fred ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 13 2005 - 00:00:02 EST