[OPE-L:4882] RE: Re: Give us some NUMBERS, Fred! (was: rent and the working class)

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 00:55:44 EST

Steve Keen's OPE-L 4873 puzzles me.  I do not see that, or how,
the implication of my comment is to reject the ceteris paribus
assumption or its equivalent.  I employ that assumption all the

As for the rest, market movements in wages weren't part of Marx's
explanation of the origin of surplus-value, but they certainly
*did* "form a part of Marx's
explanation of the ... magnitude of surplus[-value]."   (For just
one of many examples, see his discussion in Ch. 25 of Capital,
Vol. I.)  And it is a good thing, too.  Because if Marx's
explanation of what determines the magnitude of surplus-value
*excluded* these wage movements, he would (by definition) have
been claiming that the magnitude of surplus-value is NOT
influenced by these wage movements.  And that would have been

It is one thing to focus on some of the many determinants of a
phenomenon.  It is another to claim that they are the sole

Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST