In http://wrongarithmetic.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/keen-i/, it talks about how economists Steve Keen's argument against Labor Theory of Value (LTV) is wrong.
What I do not get is from
This leaves a revenue of \$34.36, which is \$2.54 greater than its profit of \$31.82 in this first period.
This of course came from \$101.82-\$67.46 = \$34.36. I am getting confused because
1) Isn't revenue normally defined as the whole money you get from selling a product without counting any cost?
2) What does these values actually imply? The text seems to suggest it is money that can be used to support costs that come into making a product. I am not getting this. Why is profit not such value?
Also, in the text, it says
Once capital has been advanced and revenue spent, the total social product has been reproduced. Total purchases in Period 2 are the total social capital (total c + total v) plus total revenue (r):
125.46 + 66.54 = \$192. This equals the total production price for Period 1: the total social capital invested plus the total profit (π): 132 + 60 = \$192. Finally, in Period 2 all sales equal their purchases:
Iron: (corn c + gold c) – (iron v + iron r) = (21.82 + 29.09) – (16.55 + 34.36) = $0
Gold: (iron r + corn r) – (gold c + gold v + 3 tons of corn) = (34.36 + 13.64) – (29.09 + 4.73 + 14.19) = $0
Corn: (iron v + gold v + 3 tons of corn) – (corn c + corn r) = (16.55 + 4.73 + 14.19) – (21.82 + 13.64) = $0
I am really having a hard time understanding this. Probably this is because I failed to understand the first part.
Can anyone explain this?