>In a response to Ramos, Paul says (amongst much else:
>> So long as the analysis was presented
>> in terms of production prices, it was not evident that
>> firm a was less socially efficient than firm b. Value
>> analysis immediately brings this out.
>
>I wonder if the source of the difference between Paul and the SS comrades may
>not lie in Paul's assumption that 'social inefficiency' (in labour time terms)
>is typically a source of instability in a capitalist economy. Since a
capitalist
>economy is driven by decentralised profit 'maximising' iaw monetary prices and
>costs, typically under imperfect competition, is such an assumption
>sustainable??
>
>Michael
Paul C:
Ramos was assuming competition rather than monopoly. This is implicit in the
assumption of profit rate equalization. Under these circumstances I showed
that the coexistence of his two different production techniques using different
amounts of social labour time was an unstable equilibrium.
If the analysis is not sustainable in the general case, then the theory of
mechanisation in capital 1 would be invalid. Perhaps you would care to present
a critique of this theory?
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html