[10] See p. 134. [11] Later it is assumed that real wages can be depressed by taxation (p. 455). [12] See p. 116. [13] See p. 85. [14] See p. 355. [15] See p. 76, note 355. [16] See p. 79. [17] In the numerical example quoted in chap. vi. (p. 117) the rate of profit is much higher in Department II than in I. Marx has made the rate of exploitation equal in the two departments, and the ratio of constant to variable capital higher in Department I. This is evidently an oversight. The two departments must trade with each other at market prices, not in terms of _value_. Therefore _s_{1}_ must represent the profits accruing to Department I, not a proportion (half in the example) of the _value_ generated in Department I. _s_{1}/v_{1}_ should exceed _s_{2}/v_{2}_ to an extent corresponding to the higher organic composition of capital in Department I. The point is interesting, as it shows that when off guard Marx forgot that he could make prices proportional to _values_ only when the organic composition of capital is the same in all industries. [18] See p. 129. [19] See p. 130. [20] Since, in this model, the organic composition of capital is the same in the two departments, prices correspond to _values_. [21] Of total gross output, 2/3 is replacement of constant capital; surplus is 1/6 of gross output, and of surplus half is saved; thus savings are 1/12 of gross output; of saving 4/5 is added to constant capital; thus 1/15 of gross output is added to constant capital. The output of Department I is therefore 2/3 + 1/15 or 11/15 of total gross output. Similarly, the output of Department II is 4/15 of total gross output. [22] This model bears a strong family resemblance to Mr. Harrod's 'Warranted rate of growth'. _Towards a Dynamic Economics_, lecture III. [23] See p. 119. [24] See p. 125. [25] See p. 128. [26] See p. 91. [27] See p. 115. [28] See p. 102. The phrase '_zahlungsfähige nachfrage_', translated 'effective demand', is not the effective demand of Keynes (roughly, current expenditure) but appears often to mean demand for new capital, or, perhaps, prospective future demand for goods to be produced by new capital. [29] This assumption is made explicit later (p. 342). [30] See pp. 131 et seq. [31] See Sweezy, loc. cit. [32] See p. 40. [33] See p. 303. [34] See p. 258. [35] This point is, however, later admitted (p. 337). [36] See p. 252. [37] See p. 259. Marx himself failed to get this point clear. Cf. my _Essay on Marxian Economics_, chap. v. [38] Cf. Kalecki, _Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations_, pp. 14 et seq. [39] See p. 323.