[OPE] Subject line correction: RE: No rise is s/v? ...

From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@buffalo.edu>
Date: Fri Oct 23 2009 - 12:50:44 EDT

Sorry, I didn't notice the change by another in the subject line in the
message I just posted. In fact, I wasn't actually replying to anybody
except partially to Jurriaan.

I meant the same subject line I originally used, i.e.,
 "No rise is s/v? Kliman's empirical work on the falling rate of profit

If you wish to comment on my message, please do not reproduce the error
which had the word "pseudo" introduced into the subject.

Thanks, Paul Z.

Paul Zarembka wrote:
> Unproductive labor is also important for s/v considered separately,
> which is how I posed the question initially. Discussion seems to have
> moved over to the rate of profit.
> Actually, I am less interested in the rate of profit than in s/v,
> accumulation, and overproduction. And Kliman himself says in his
> draft (the second), "I have also made no attempt to construct 'the
> Marxian' rate of profit", arguing that there are many applications of
> differing measures of profits by Marx. This seems to say that it is
> not being offered as a well-defined concept, by anyone including
> Marx. And, if not well-defined, then any 'law' of a falling tendency
> seems also less than well-defined.
> Jurriaan, for my own edification, could you elaborate somewhat upon
> your comment: "Just simple arithmetic and a comparison of different
> data sources can show there is more profit in the system than the BEA
> measure suggests"? It's important for getting a good handle on s.
> One trick that is sometimes used here in the States, is defining a
> corporation as "non-profit" and yet huge sums flow to others than
> workers.
> Paul Z.
ope mailing list
Received on Fri Oct 23 12:53:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT