Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2006 - 00:27:22 EDT

Next message: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: [OPE-L] Ajit's Paper on Sraffa and Late Wittgenstein"
Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
Next in thread: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Phil

"New" was an infelicitous term. In the circular flow the surplus-value
is constant: it is continually reproduced. All labour-costs go "round
and round". I mentioned it because it seemed like you were perturbed
by this property (your use of the term "immortal"). This made me
wonder whether you had a more "dynamic" image in mind, in which the
net product and surplus-value are "novel" or "new", such as to upset
the circular flow. Perhaps you could clarify.

> I have always thought that new value added and surplus value was created
> in every turn round the loop.

Yes, I agree.

Best wishes,
-Ian.

Next message: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: [OPE-L] Ajit's Paper on Sraffa and Late Wittgenstein"
Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
Next in thread: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT