I'm not sure I understood all of what Bruce recently said
in OPE-L 2989 when he explained structural
abstraction. But for whatever reason the following questions
and thoughts spring to mind.
1. If one is going to use equilibrium points in an analysis
of technical change, need not the destruction of value
somehow play a role as one traverses from one
equilibrium point to another. Roemer chides
Persky and Alberro for not seeing that capitalists
would take into account this aniticipated loss.
Unfortunately, given Roemer's own rejection of value
theory, the loss seems to disappear without question.
It does seem to me that, given a labor theory of value,
one is obligated to speak of the loss as one looks upon TSS
with a critical eye. IMO, it is this loss, more than anything
else, which gives rise to TSS.
2. To say that Marx assumed exchanges at PoP somewhere
in CAPITAL is simply wrong. Marx himself stated that
various sectors of the economy do not enter into the
formation of PoP. He noted that the sectors in which
there is a natural monopoly are not part of his presentation
of PoP in Chap. 9 of Vol III. (See Marx to Engels, 04/30/1868)
What is the basis for ignoring this?
John