From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2008 - 08:42:05 EST
on 2008-01-26 14:26 Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > > This paradox is solved by Fred Moseley (and Paul Cockshott) only by > saying total surplus value does not equal total profits (because total > unproductive labour costs are deducted from total surplus value to > obtain total profit), but in that case, Marx's two identities (total > surplus value = total profits, total prices = total values) cannot > hold even in theory, such that deviations of prices from values would > fully cancel each other out in aggregate. > An alternative solution would be to exclude unproductive labour costs > from the calculation of net value added, on the ground that they do > not in fact add net new value. Yet these costs are part of the > total value of gross output. > Jurriaan, I can honestly not see what the fuss is about. It seems to me that you are making the issue unnecessarily complicated. I doubt whether anyone has seriously claimed that in a real economy the identity "total surplus value = total profits" holds. Total profits are a subset of the monetary surplus value realised in each firm. Surplus value breaks down into profits of enterprise, interest and dividends, rents and other non-production costs. Have not Shaikh and Tonak showed that a such an accounting is perfectly possible? //Dave Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST