# [OPE-L:3795] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: surplus value andtransferrred value

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 07:57:54 EDT

clyder wrote:

> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> >
> > > Let's cut through this merry go around, and put Fred's arguments in
> equation form to
> > > show its absurdity. Let me accept Fred's assumption that Ci's and Vi's
> are "given".
> > >
> > > Let us suppose we are in two good economy say iron and wheat. According
> to Fred's
> > > theory, for iron sector we "observe":
> > >
> > > \$300 (iron) + \$100 (wheat) + 10 hrs of labor, and for wheat sector
> > > \$200 (iron) + \$100 (wheat) + 10 hrs of labor
> >
> > Variable capital appears to be missing from these givens. This is the
> > second time you have left out variable capital in your formulation of my
> > interpretation. But at least this time you didn't accuse me of leaving
> > out variable capital.
> >
> >
> > > Given this, according to Fred
> > >
> > > 20hrs x m = \$700 + \$700r, where r is the rate of profits.
> > >
> > > --> r = (\$20m - \$700)/\$700
> >
> > I have no idea where your equation comes from. It has nothing to do with
> > my interpretation.
>
> I was unclear on your derivation here as well Ajit

_____________________

Of course, I made a typo error there. It should be

r = (20m - 200)/700, where \$200 is total variable capital in the system and
\$700 the total capital, as Fred defines them. But this does not change the
conclusion of the argument. ajit

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT