[ show plain text ]
Each to his own reading of Marx, I suppose...
I would read these as a general statement of a disequilibrium situation,
exposited for an audience of workers in order to identify the equilibrium
situation in which input and output prices were identical, and yet a profit
can still be made by capitalists.
At 09:47 AM 8/11/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Many thanks to Steve for the quote from Wage-Labour and Capital; it seems to
>me that this can be read as strong textual evidence for Fred M's (and of
>course also Andrew K and Alan F's) interpretation. The crucial words are:
> "If in exchange for these goods [the commodities sold by the
>> receives a quantity of other goods whose production has cost less, he has
>> lost. If he receives in exchange for his goods a quantity of other goods
>> whose production has cost more, he has gained."
> Assuming that Marx understood the "other goods" received by the
>capitalist to be means of production, this seems about as clear a statement
>as one could wish for that he *intended* a system in which input prices did
>not necessarily equal input values, and that his alleged mistake in the
>transformation problem was not an oversight.
Dr. Steve Keen
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
email@example.com 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT