From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2007 - 22:38:43 EDT
Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > The standard way is to use a stock matrix as well as flow matrix, if you have > that you can ignore turnover period since the information in it is encoded > in the combination of the two matrices. Hi Paul, I am not talking about unequal turnover periods between fixed capital and circulating capital (although that is also a big problem in Sraffian theory, dealt with by the dubious method of treating fixed capital as "joint products".) Rather, I am talking about unequal turnover perods of circulating capital across industries. This is what Sraffian theory cannot incorporate, for reasons I explained in my last message (and copied below). Comradely, Fred P.S. Please send me a reference or two that present the "standard way" that you mention. Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of glevy@PRATT.EDU > Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 4:48 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods > >> Still playing on my one string violin, what about cases when the turnover >> period for constant capital is unknown? > > Hi Michael P: > > Then you include it as a variable with an unknown magnitude in the model. > There are different ways in which this could be done: e.g. one could make > certain assumptions that could give you a _range_ for the variable. This > would, of course, introduce uncertainty into the model and mean that it > wouldn't yield a single result. Yet, this is uncertainty which is a > consequence of the essential nature of the subject matter: i.e. it is > _real_ uncertainty and shouldn't be eliminated for purposes of > mathematical convenience. > > In solidarity, Jerry > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT