1.
> Given your quote marks around the word "caused", I'm not sure what what
> exactly your issue is.
Actually, I placed star (*) marks around caused for emphasis rather than
quotation marks ("...") [see below].
2.
> The falling rate of profit is caused by the
> manner in which the accumulation of capital takes place.
Very vague.
Andrew put the issue much more clearly when he said that "the profit rate
falls *because* productivity rises" [Andrew's emphasis, JL].
As I explained previously, I don't disagree that this was Marx's
perspective.
Yet, you have yet to show that capital-saving technical change will *cause
the productivity of labor to rise*.
3.
Note that to show that the rate of profit *might* fall even where there is
capital-saving technical change is different from saying that the rate of
profit *will* fall *because* of that type of technical change.
Until *that* is *demonstrated*, we would simply run the risk of assuming
that since two events can occur at the same time (capital-saving
technical change & fall in rate of profit), one causes the other.
In solidarity, Jerry
> At issue is whether the
> all in the rate of profit is *caused* by capital-saving technical change.