On 8 April 2010 13:13, GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> wrote:
Marx and many variations of Marxist theory have incorporated conceptions
of credit and debt.
To my knowledge Marx did not deal with credit/debt in this context of
exploitation.
There are non-orthodox formulations, such as that in surplus
> approach theory, which don't include money and hence exclude the
> possibility
> of indebtedness and credit. Your issues raise concerns for those
> formulations.
>
>
Yes, I think it is most problematic for the type of theory that Duncan Foley
and Simon Mohun advocate.
> I think the problem with your numerical examples might stem from the fact
> that they are neither contextualized in terms of the *reproduction process*
> or allow for *spatial and temporal dimensions*. (NB: there are other issues
> too: because you don't distinguish between c and the surplus product, a
> percentage of "profit" will depreciate.)
>
>
You have to be more precise than this or your objection boils down to
nothing. (Let's take investments net of depreciation so that we are speaking
of the Net Product in the RHS.)
//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Apr 8 07:32:56 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT