>Paul Z. writes [[hi, Paul. Thanks for your help w/ JAI]]:
>
>
>>These remarks of Duncan are consistent with my own understanding, i.e.,
>>it is very important to take the rate of surplus value as fixed in
>>analyzing the falling tendency of the rate of profit.
>
>Important to make the theory work, perhaps, but in any relevant empirical
sense?
>What plausible capitalist dynamic guarantees this, especially since
>capitalists don't base their decisions on value-theoretic categories? In
>light of the latter it seems to me that value-theoretic categories are
>presumptively epiphenomenal in any such account. This presumption can be
>rebutted, of course, but it requires an explicit argument.
>
>Gil
The rate of surplus value is generally not fixed, but shows clear
rising secular tendancies. The ratio of wages to profits on the
other hand shows considerably less variation.
>
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html