Alan wrote in [OPE-L:3188]:
> The problem is as follows: everyone says (including ourselves
> - this isn't a complaint) that Okishio has to be refuted on his
> own terms. But *He* (not us) assumes, along with all static
> theory, an equal profit rate.
NOT everyone agrees that Okishio needs to be answered on his own terms.
Re the other main point that Alan made in his post, the FRP in Marx
concerns the "law of the tendency for the general rate of profit to
decline" (LTGRPD). What I hear Alan suggesting is that we need to drop the
"assumption" of a general r. While it may or may not be the case
empirically that there is a general r, the issue in _Marx_ *clearly*
concerns the law for the GENERAL r to tendencially fall. If that "law"
is to be attacked or defended, it must -- at least initially -- concern
the analytics of changes in the general r during the course of
accumulation. After we consider that question, we can then consider
whether there are problems in practice with the idea of a general r and
what the specific nature and implications of those problems are.
In solidarity,
Jerry