Re: [OPE] Mastering Marxian Economics

From: Philip Dunn (
Date: Sun Jul 27 2008 - 17:34:08 EDT

Hi Jerry

I was tickled pink by the argument. Given the premise that the VLP is
determined by the value of the bundle of goods required to reproduce LP
(historical and moral element box ticked), the conclusion inexorably
follows - the iron law of wages. You can't have wages below VLP
permanently or the VLP permanently reduced unless it is decided that a
chunk of LP will not be reproduced. That could happen, of course. Maybe
it is happening. 

I hold, however, that the expression 'value of labour-power' is as
irrational as the expression 'the value of labour'.

The absurd conclusion was highly amusing. I question the premise. 

On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 10:36 -0400, Gerald Levy wrote:
> Hi Phil:
> Here's the analysis from a recent article on the current crisis 
> which I  referenced in my last post and objected to:
> "Unless the government goes back on this implicit guarantee, the 
> lion's share of mortgage losses will now be paid by U.S. taxpayers, in 
> the form of interest payments on the extra funds the Treasury will 
> need to borrow inorder to cover these losses. This does not mean, 
> however, that the working class will ultimately foot the bill. Under 
> capitalism, wages and salaries are ultimately governed by economic 
> laws that higher taxes do not suspend.Thus, the extra government 
> borrowing isn't likely to have much effect on the*after-tax* income 
> of working people. If taxes increase, their pre-tax incomes are likely 
> to increase as well, so that the bill will ultimately bepaid by 
> employers".
> You don't accept that nonsense, do you?
> In solidarity, Jerry
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 00:00:10 EDT