[OPE-L:3971] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: m in Marx's theory

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 12:21:20 EDT

This is a response to Steve K's (3938).  Steve, thanks for your several
recent posts, which I have read and thought about and hope to have the
time to reply soon.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote:

> At the risk of insulting Fred, might I suggest that one reason for the
> impasse with Ajit is over Fred's use of the word "proportional" to
> characterise the relationship between S and L in the formula:
> S = (m.L - V)
> which (correct me if I'mn wrong, but...) Fred agrees characterises his theory?
> Strictly speaking, this formula can only be "proportional" if V=0. If so,
> then for example, if m=2, S= 2*L for all values of S and L. If, however,
> V>0, then the "proportionality" this formula gives varies as S and L vary.
> For example, if m=2 and V=2 then S/L=0 for L=1, S/L=1 for L=1.5, S/L=2 for
> L=2, and so on.
> That is not proportionality in the strict meaning of the word.
> Cheers,
> Steve

Steve, I think you misunderstand what I am saying.  I am not saying that
"S is proportional to L". Rather, I am saying that "S is proportional to
Ls" (S = m Ls), where Ls = (L - Ln), and Ln = V/m.  

On the basis of these definitions, and using your example, S is indeed
proportional to Ls, with m as the factor of proportionality.  This can be
seen from the following table, using your example:

m	L	V	S	Ln	Ls	S/Ls

2	1.5	2	1	1	0.5	  2

2	2	2	2	1	1	  2

Is not this proportionality "in the strict meaning of the word"?


P.S.  By the way, why do you think that I would be insulted by your
post?  You present a clear logical criticism, without gratuitous
insults.  I appreciate your post.  

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST