At 11:46 AM 6/16/97 -0700, Andrew Kliman wrote:
>I thank Ajit for his ope-l 5267. It was intended to show that my reading of
>the passage is "100[%] false," but it in fact supports what I said 100%!
________________
Not really! The quotation from Marx, which I interpreted, does not support
your interpretation. There Marx is not talking about revenue being larger
than the surplus value.
_______
As I've noted, Fred's reasoning
>implies that, because new capital is "part" of surplus-value, net capital
>investment cannot become negative, and so capitalists can never disinvest in
>value terms!
Fred held that revenue can NEVER
>exceed surplus-value, by "definition*, and Ajit acknowledges that this is
>untrue.
___________________
I doubt that this is what Fred's position is. How can one deny that a system
could be run down to the ground. But, then Fred will have to answer your
interpretation of his position. I cannot say anything more about it.
As far as your "difference equation" is concerned. I must admit, I don't
understand what is going on there. But then I'm not much interested in
carring on this strand of the debate. I have to start grading the exams like
a mad man from tomorrow. Cheers, ajit