A reply to Jerry's ope-l 3428.
Jerry: "I will note that Andrew has *still* not answered #3383, #3400, or
other points in recent posts on this thread that I have written."
That's because I'm still engaged in answering Jerry's ope-l 3314, which was
his second post on this thread, and which was posted only nine days ago (Oct.
7, 1996). Specifically, I'm still examining the truth-value of this claim of
his made in ope-l 3314:
"If v = 0, then no rational capitalist would introduce labor-saving technical
change at time t since labor is working for free."
So I'm certainly not evading anything or ignoring Jerry. Nor am I changing
the subject. I'm discussing *his* post, *his* claim, and not diverting from
it one iota. (For the record: the "accumulation of capital revisited" thread
was begun by Jerry in ope-l 3297. I first responded in ope-l 3306, and his
ope-l 3314, from which the above quote comes, was his first reply to me.)
Jerry (ope-l 3428): "You can say you are right a hundred times and that won't
convince anyone. You can say you are right a million times and that won't
convince anyone. Not once have you attempted to relate the categories of v
and "R" in Marx and show that _Marx_ viewed "R" as a _basic_ category on the
same par with c, v, or s (or other basic categories such as commodities,
money, profit, wage-labour, etc.). I have to conclude, therefore, that you
know you are wrong and I am right."
First things first, please. Am I right that the claim you made in ope-l 3314
("If v = 0, then no rational capitalist would introduce labor-saving technical
change at time t since labor is working for free.") is false?
Andrew Kliman