In ope-l 4230, Andrew wrote:
> Bortkiewicz tried to disprove this. But, as Ted and I have noted,
> Bortkiewiczs alleged disproof is fatally flawed: he assumes that the "C" and
> the "V" at the *start* of the period "buy back" the means of production and
> wage goods produced at the *end* of the period. If that were the case, then
> equality of supplies and demands would indeed require stationary prices. Yet
> Marxs schema of expanded reproduction show that this underconsumptionist
> "buying back" concept is wrong: it is the advance of capital in the *next*
> period that purchases the means of production and wage goods produced in
> *this* period. As Anwar Shaikh has rightly noted, the "buying back" concept
> would make accumulation impossible!
Dear Andrew:
What are you exact references of both Bort's attempt "to disprove
this" and Shaikh's observation?
Alejandro Ramos M.
17.2.97