| |
| | Kepa M. Ormazabal, "Neo-Classical Economics Is Not 'Neo', but 'Anti'-Classical", Post-Autistic Economics ... |
 | | For the Classical tradition, the concept of price is only indirectly related to utility, and it is primarily related to profit; in other words: price is not a means to improve utility, but a means to surplus value, to the accumulation of capital for its own sake. |
 | | Looked at from Classical Economics, the problem with the “Neo-Classical” conceptions of value and profit is not that they are “highly abstract”, but to the contrary, namely, that they are “lowly abstract”, which is why they lead us to deny the evidence. |
 | | In Classical Economics, “high abstraction” does not lead to the employment of the term “competition” as equivalent to “exchange”, or to saying that, in developed capitalistic economies, profit is annihilated. |
| www.paecon.net /PAEReview/issue22/Ormazabal22.htm (1515 words) |
|