Andrew writes:
> In any case, I was a bit surprised to see Allin's post. I had earlier
> (shortly after he originally posted) responded to his argument that the
> TSS profit rate really isn't equalized, but heard nothing from him (or
> anyone else) regarding my response.
>
> Again: my basic response is
>
> (a) the profit per unit of capital advanced *is* equalized, and this is
> the profit rate that, in Marx's (and the classicists') theory, tends
> to be equalized through competition; and
>
> (b) that the revenue for capitalist consumption per unit of capital advanced
> is not equalized is no real problem. It would only be a problem if
> capitalists' goal were consumption, which Marx repeatedly, emphatically,
> and clearly rejects.
I did notice Andrew's original response, but it came at a bad time for
me to come back on the point. IMO, Andrew's points above do not
constitute an answer. The variable that, as I claim, is _not_
equalized (prior to convergence of input and output prices) is:
(income from sales of output - the outlay required to continue
production on the same scale)/(initial outlay). And this seems to
me to be the variable that ought to be equalized (according to
the logic of this general approach). It represents the rate of
return that can be devoted either to consumption OR to net
accumulation. (Andrew's example assumes simple reproduction, and
in that case capitalists must, surely, be assumed to be maximizing
their consumption possibilities.)
Allin Cottrell.