>
>
> I agree with your wanting to avoid bullshit - but don't dismiss the
> whole thing on the basis of a Wikipedia article! And again, this all
> has nothing to do with the 'transformation problem', but is about
> rival theories of the source and nature of profit. If you want a good
> comparative study of Marxian and neoclassical theories of profit,
> which takes both seriously, I recommend Michael Howard's [1983]
> 'Profits in Economic Theory'.
>
> Mike Beggs
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
This was an incredibly helpful post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
When reading Capital I saw Marx mention he was starting out with an analysis of an ideal capitalism, and mentioning that of course supply and demand lead to all sorts of temporary fluctuations in exchange value and so on, and I think I sort of filled in the standard list of unrealistic-but-analytically-useful assumptions I had drilled into me from neoclassical. (My almost total unfamiliarity with classical, other than some cursory Smith, doesn't help. The reading suggestions everyone's offered are a help and should keep me busy for a long time.)