From: Pen-L Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2007 - 22:46:08 EDT
Quoting Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM>: >> In my view, the crucial point is the determination of the total >> surplus-value prior to its division into individual parts, for which >> there is very substantial evidence, which I have presented in several >> papers. > > Hi Fred: > > Let's look at what *you* mean here by "determination". According > to your *macro* perspective: > > M = C + V > > where the quantity of M is given. > > This is not "determination": M does not "determine" C + V above; > M is simply *assumed* to equal C + V. I have not said that this is determination. This is a definition. C and V are taken as given, as is their sum M. > Since you have a *macro* theory, you have to stipulate > what proportion M is of the total supply of money in the system. > This you have not done. Why do I have to do this? > You are also implicitly assuming, btw, that capitalist class unproductive > consumption equals -0- for the period t - 1. I don’t see why this is true either. The theory of the determination of the total surplus-value in Vol. 1 does not require any assumption about how the total surplus-value is divided between consumption and accumulation. Ditto for the theory of the division of the total surplus-value into individual parts in Vol. 3. Comradely, Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT