From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2007 - 10:58:52 EDT
--- Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT> wrote: > Hi David, > > actually, I agree 98%. I too think that > > - "There are no contradictions or > "inconsistences" in Marx [regarding the > transformation]; only some incompleteness in the > formalization of the quantitative side of the > theory. " ___________________ Not true Riccardo! The fundamental problem with measuring capital by labor-values is that it does not take into account the fact that capital accrues on compound rate and not simple rate. Unless you argue that capital must accrue on simple rate and not compound rate, you simply cannot make a case for Marx. Marx did not see this problem because he got carried away by his 'discovery' of 'surplus value'. But Ricardo had seen this problem very clearly. Ricardo had already developed the concept of variable and constant capital, but crossed it out as he could see that it was not solving the problem. But of course, he did not develop the concept of ‘surplus value’, which in any case does not solve the problem. Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bzÈn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT