In ope-l 4864 Andrew K. wrote:
> And so, if 4 bushels of seed-corn yield
> 5 bushels of corn output, the profit rate must be 25 0n Ajits theory.
> WHETHER THIS TAKES PLACE THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF HUMAN LABOR OR NOT IS
> IRRELEVANT. (This is the real meaning of the notion that "value is redundant"
> in the physicalist outlook.) Corn is the substance of value, and the profit
> rate is the rate of self-expansion of corn. Profit grows on trees. In this
> sense, I agree with Alejandro Ramos remark that Davids reply to him is a
> "fruitful" basis for discussion
> All this brings to mind Marxs reaction to Ricardos profit rate
> theory: he
> "fless economics to seek refuge in organic chemistry" (Grundrisse, p. 754).
It is usual to describe the "growing-on-tree-profit" theory as
"Ricardian", "Neo-ricardian" or "Sraffian". But reading Andrew K's
"green-piece" I think it would be better to describe it as a NEO-
PHYSIOCRATIC theory of profit rate.
Let us remember that, for Ricardo, "labor" is the substance of value,
not "corn". It is true that "Ricardo does not examine the... peculiar
characteristic of labour that creates exchange value" but it is also
true that "Ricardo starts out from the determination of the relative
values... of commodities by *the quantity of labour*".
I dont think this is the case of many "Neo-ricardian" of "Sraffian"
folks.
Alejandro R.