Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 12:16:58 EST

Quoting Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK>:

> Fred,
> I can only repeat that I consider the terms S&D to belong to the surface
> realm of economics as expressed in market prices. It would deal with those
> many concerns that fall into the examination of competition itself and
> which
> see market prices moving around prices of production, if I can use that
> expression.
> At the levels of analysis in the three vols of capital, (despite the fact
> that Marx always illustrates his points as far as it is possible, as
> appropriate,  given the stage of the argument he has reached), then the
> problem of realisation is usually not considered as such. I simply won't
> refer to this as treating S=D, its seems incorrect to me, and all that I
> have read in Marx seems to me to say ' we don't start here'.
> That's it
> Cheers Paul

Paul, thanks for your latest message and sorry for my delayed response
(it's been a hectic week).

I am happy to agree to disagree about the precise formulation of S and D, 
since I think we agree on my main point (donít we?) - that Marx generally 
assumes no realization problem in the Volume 3 theory of the distribution of 
surplus-value, and therefore assumes that the total amount of surplus-value is 
taken as given, as determined by the prior theory of the production of surplus-

Thanks again for the discussion.


This mail sent through IMP:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 13 2005 - 00:00:02 EST