Briefly responding to Paul C's #1468 & #1500:
>From #1500:
> Value theory is the wrong level of abstraction to approach this
> question. Whether the rate of profit falls or not depends upon
> the relative rates of growth of capital stock and of national income,
> and upon the division of the latter between classes. <snip>
> Note that this form of argument is quite general and does not
> depend upon acceptance of the labour theory of value, it can be
> made simply as at the level of standard national income accounts.
Are not the categories of c, v, and s of some relevance to the LTGRPD? If
so, doesn't the "law" depend on categories of value analysis?
Like Paul (in #1468), I believe it is important not to confuse and
conflate different levels of analysis. However, I believe that his
schema did not a) explain the relationship and inter-connectedness of
different levels and b) the reasoning that went into the separation of
different levels. As such, it has to be further developed before
commenting on its appropriateness.
If one type of problem by Marxists arises when one conflates different
levels of analysis, don't other problems arise when we view different
levels as completely separate and distinct?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry
PS: That was a sneaky question, Simon. Also, what are the answers to
Riccardo's quiz? I hope he tells us after returning from Boston.