A response to Ajit's ope-l 5373:
He wrote: "[the] Marxian general rate of profit is not an empirical waighted
average of various rates of profits prevailing in different industries and
firms."
MARX's general profit rate is indeed a weighted average. So Ajit is claiming
that Marx is not a "Marxian." What entitles him to do so?
Ajit: "As far as the proof of why luxury good sector will have no impact on
the general rate of profit, why give credit to Okishio (1974) when it is
already there in Sraffa (1960)?"
Why give "credit" to Sraffa when it is already there in Bortkiewicz, or
Bortkiewicz when it is already there in Dmitriev, or in Dmitriev when it is
already there in Ricardo and the Ricardians?
Andrew Kliman