From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 08:55:57 EST
Paul, You wrote: "On the other hand I do not expect that, subject to total price=total value, then total profit=total surplus value. I would expect them to be related but only loosely." But the way I stated the argument was that, for any individual firm, money costs (money measure of c+v) will be close to labour-time costs (labour measure of c+v). The logic of this argument is that total money costs across the economy must be very close indeed to their labour time measure. You also accept that total prices = total values. Total profit = total prices (money measure of total s+c+v) minus total costs (money measure of total c+v). Both terms of the RHS are also equal to their labour time measures so surplus value must equal total profit. So I cannot have stated the argument you are making exactly correctly. Presumably the problem lies in the treatment of 'v'. Let me know. Many thanks Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 04 2006 - 00:00:01 EST