Mike Beggs wrote:
> In other words, the labour theory of value was thus a step towards
> equilibrium theory and a real advance over vulgar supply-and-demand
> theory. But conceptualising demand and supply as _schedules_ opened
> the way to superseding vulgar labour-value theory in turn. When
> Marxists stick to the letter of Capital and quote Marx's dismissals of
> supply and demand as determining nothing, and think this holds against
> neoclassical conceptions of supply and demand, they are falling into
> anachronism. Even if the neoclassical vision is problematic, the fact
> remains that it's not what Marx was dismissing, and they therefore
> miss the opportunity to engage productively.
^^^^^^^^ CB: Who by name are those who say that Marx dismissed suppy and demand as determining nothing ? Are they scarcrows standing in a field somewhere (smile). Where exactly in Capital can we quote Marx as saying that ?
Hollow men say :supply and demand explain the deviation of price from value.
Not only that: Marx's labor theory of value ,and theory of exploitation and surplus value explain why supply always exceeds demand, don't they ?