From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2006 - 08:51:08 EDT
> Unfortunately the citation you brought is not related to the issue. Hi Paolo: It is related to the issue in the sense I specified: Marx did not claim that wages equal zero at the maximum rate of profit. My point was simply that when current authors refer to a "maximum rate of profit" they are referring to conditions quite different from those specified by Marx. Marx's maximum rate of profit has political-economic and historical meaning; the more modern use of the expression is hopelessly inadequate for the comprehension of any real economic process. > In the maximum rate of profit argument all new value created stands in > the numerator and capital advanced in the denominator, the well > known L/c, where L is the new value crested and c the constant capital. > Then, the argument goes, if the > value composition of production c/L (as Shaikh(?) calls it) presents a > tendency to increase, the maximum rate of profit L/c must present a > tendency to fall. I basically agree with Ajit's response about the centrality of the V = 0 assumption to that argument. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST