[ show plain text ]
Sorry, that should have been:
Paul, pretty much like Rosa, regards the question of
"where the money comes from" as subsidiary to and in
fact a distraction from the main issue, namely "where
the DEMAND comes from."
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew_Kliman <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:3160] Re: Production for Production's Sake (was Need
1 andLuxemburg's *Accumulation of Capital*)
: A response to Duncan's question in OPE-L:3160,
: "I gather from the fact that you don't mention money capital in the
: assumptions of your example that you assume that it turns over
: *Something* like that. I'm just trying to focus on the "effective
: demand" problem, and I think it is simplest at first to exclude
: complicating things like technical change and stocks, including money
: stocks. Paul, pretty much like Rosa, regards the question of "where
: money comes from" as subsidiary to and in fact a distraction from the
: main issue, namely "where the money comes from."
: My exact assumption is that supplies are "realized" immediately.
: Together with the other assumptions, this eliminates the need for
: of money, because supplies are creating their own demands.
: Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT