Allin wrote in [OPE-L:3090]:
> It's a matter of exposition/notation rather than substance, but
> I find it easier to work with a magnitude in the range 0 to 1
> rather than in the range 0 to infinity. s/(s+v) is just a
> proportion -- the fraction of the working day appropriated by
> capital -- while Marx's s/v is a ratio of proportions,
> which seems to me a little awkward to work with.
Putting aside the question of what Marx had to say regarding this issue
(pace Andrew K), is there any reason why s/(s+v) can or should not serve
as a measure of the rate of surplus value?
Do others agree with Allin that this is a matter of "exposition/notation
rather than substance"?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry
PS: Thanks for the "accounting notes",(#3133), Michael P!