> To exit this madness, let me simply ask what part of Andrew's argument
> would you
> disagree with, had he said that the real wage was
> .00000000000000000000000001?
Had he said that the real wage was .00000000000000000000001, then his
*conclusion* would have been different -- or at least would have to be
re-stated in a different way.
> Below you avoid the question and cling to the idea that Andrew thinks
> workers
> can live on air.
No, what I said is that he has created a *illustration* concerning
technical change under capitalism in which workers live on air.
> Without an answer to the question, it appears that the whole
> point is to charge Andrew with being a class criminal.
I doubt if anyone outside of TSS would read what I wrote as giving that
appearance.
> Is v
> actually 0? Nope. Can it actually ever be 0? Nope.
The problem that I am raising concerns the *specification* with which a
model -- or "numerical illustration" -- is constructed. This is, after
all, vital since the conclusions depend on the specification, including
the assumptions made.
In the past, you have complained loudly about models/illustrations of
capital accumulation with technical change that have *assumed away fixed
capital* (by, for instance, assuming that all constant capital is
circulating constant capital).
So now what do we have?
We have models/illustrations in which there is *no constant circulating
capital* and *no variable capital*.
We even have *one commodity capitalist economies* in some illustrations.
Do you really consider that an improvement over the existing state of
understanding?
If you *really* want to consider models of technical change with fixed
capital, then we'll need to include both variable capital and constant
circulating capital as variables.
In solidarity, Jerry