John wrote in [OPE-L:1510]:
> Here, whether or not others agree or disagree, while essential to our
> dialog, misses my point. Within the literature on the falling rate of
> profit the "general" rate of profit is most often seen as the
> equilibrium rate of profit.
*Why* is the general r seen in much of the literature as the equilibrium r?
When did this tradition begin (von Bortkiewicz?) and what are its
implications?
> There's a ton of literature on the falling rate of profit. It is one of
> the two most frequently debated issues within the realm of Marxian
> economics.
*Why* has it become a source of obsession for many Marxists? Why has the
focus been in recent decades on answering Steedman and Okishio rather
than attempting to develop the theory of crisis (and/or other, arguably
more important, subjects)?
> You've tacitly accepted Andrew's definition of the rate of profit,
> yet that definition has not been around that long and,
> again, is not generally accepted.
I haven't tacitly accepted Andrew's definition. I couldn't care less how
long it's been around or whether it is generally accepted. Such criteria
are rather poor ones for the discussion of theoretical issues.
Andrew's and Ted's critique of Okishio, as I understand it, concentrates
on establishing the logical inconsistencies of that theorem. As such, it
does not *by itself* tell us much about the general rate of profit or the
LTGRPD. (correct me if I am wrong, Andrew).
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry