Re: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?

From: Cyrus Bina (binac@MRS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 30 2004 - 15:51:26 EST

Dear Jerry,

First of all, I apologize for the numerous typos in my previous post. The temperature of -41 degrees will do wonders in Minnesota!

As for your question on the 'consistency' of my usage of surplus value, I utilize and interpret the production of sv both in intra- and inter-industry framework of it (i.e., both at the level of firm and industry) in the same manner as you do or, perhaps, many others do.  I differ, however, on the utilization of the sub-categories of (firm-level or industry-level) surplus value as they rates to exploitation.  But, our discussion about the oil sector need not be constrained (and side-tracked) by this difference.  For instance, I have a totally different view than many on value formation and decline of the profit rate.  At any rate, let's accept that appropriate answers presuppose appropriate questions.  

Have a great weekend.



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gerald_a_levy 
  Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:01 PM
  Subject: (OPE-L) Re: s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?

  Hello (again) Cyrus:

  >  Therefore, oil workers with more differential productivity produce more surplus value. 

  >  The rate of surplus value, as I indicated in my previous posting, pertains to the 
  >  totality of labor and capital in a macroeconomic category.  

  You are confusing me here.  You say that s/v is a macroeconomic rate, yet
  you also assert that some workers on an industry level produce greater (or lesser) 
  quantities of s.  Why are there two propositions consistent from your 

  In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 00:00:02 EST