On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Gil Skillman wrote:
> 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, in an overall empirical study, you are of course correct that s/v
cannot be taken as constant. Holding s/v constant, however, does help
theoretically to understand a "technical" cause for declining r. My
reply to Gerry may help here.
Paul Z.