From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Jul 21 2007 - 10:17:59 EDT
Ian, I have not seen your paper at all yet. I hope to get to it one day--but not soon though. My best, ajit --- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: > > But I think it is simply a wrong > > interpretation to interpret Sraffa's dated labor > > approach to price determination in a growth > context. > > If you find this particular interpretation of the > formula for standard > labour-values unfamiliar then concentrate on the two > other > interpretations I mention in the paper. > > The standard formula for labour-values is not > Sraffa's equation by the > way, it goes as far back at least to Dmitriev, whom > he read, but > didn't reference. > > To claim that this interpretation is "simply wrong" > you should > demonstrate that it cannot consistently translate > the system of > mathematical equations into economically meaningful > statements. That > would be a critique that might shift my position on > the growth > interpretation of the hypothetical process of > replacement. > > > Marx (and Ricardo as well) measures labor-values > in a > > similar manner with 0 power on the rate of profits > > throughout. > > If you mean that the standard formula for > labour-values is an accurate > translation of some aspects of Marx's and Ricardo's > labour-value > accounting then I agree. > > > In any case, dated labor approach is > > applicable only in a context when a sector > produces > > only one commodity. In the case of multiple > production > > (joint-production) the approach is not workable. > But > > in joint production cases first of all it is very > > difficult to define labor-value of commodities and > > even if you can do this, you cannot avoid negative > > labor-value for some commodities. > > Joint production is irrelevant to this paper, which > is a critique of > the formula for standard labour-values in single > production. > > However, I'm certain that the neo-Ricardian results > regarding joint > production and value theory are severely compromised > due to the > transfer of the labour-cost accounting error from > single production > into the joint production framework. > > The appendix contains an analysis of standard vs. > nonstandard > labour-values in the context of proportionate > growth. I wrote this > especially for you since you challenged me to > analyze this case and > claimed that my labour-cost accounting would "break > down" in this > context. But you were confusing the issue of a > distributed vs. > undistributed surplus with the concept of growth. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz°Ô!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT