**From:** *glevy@PRATT.EDU*

**Date:** Tue Oct 30 2007 - 16:58:54 EDT

**Next message:**Gary Mongiovi: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - do anyone think it is relevant?"**Previous message:**ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] Marx on the general rate of profit/rate of interest: a translation error"**In reply to:**Anders Ekeland: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - do anyone think it is relevant?"**Next in thread:**GERALD LEVY: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - does anyone think it is relevant?"**Maybe reply:**GERALD LEVY: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - does anyone think it is relevant?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Anders: If no one thought that it was relevant, then why was there so much time and effort allocated to answering it? > And of course it is the monetary rate of profit we are > talking about - the only rate that capitalists care about. Individual capitalists care about the rate of return on investment (RRI), not the rate of profit per se. I believe we had that discussion, though, before you joined OPE-L. > That there always were very strong ideological forces wanted to see > Marx proved false - and proved true. > I have not studied the literature around this theorem in depth, and > it seems to me that in Kliman's book, the chapter on this puts > forward a quite correct critique using a "dynamics light" - or > "quasi-static" model in order to disprove the Okishio theorem by the > simplest model possible - or more precisely - to show that Okishio is > not relevant for the dynamic mechanisms that Marx' discusses. > I must have missed something in Jerry's line of argument, because to > me the fact that wages are zero in Kliman's examples is only a true > simplifying assumption. I fail so see that giving workers a constant > monetary wage would change anything regarding the relevance of Okishio. The question is what the range of conditions specified by the illustration include. Clearly, the range includes the "limit case" of V = 0 but V = 0 is a condition beyond the limit in that no meaningful formula can be derived from that case. Thus, "at the limit" all formula fall apart. In solidarity, Jerry

**Next message:**Gary Mongiovi: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - do anyone think it is relevant?"**Previous message:**ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] Marx on the general rate of profit/rate of interest: a translation error"**In reply to:**Anders Ekeland: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - do anyone think it is relevant?"**Next in thread:**GERALD LEVY: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - does anyone think it is relevant?"**Maybe reply:**GERALD LEVY: "Re: [OPE-L] Okishio Theorem - does anyone think it is relevant?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT
*