[ show plain text ]
Rakesh wrote, in part:
>I am not a defender of the NI because I don't understand it beyond what's
>in Duncan's Understanding Capital. I think the real arbitrary assumption is
>that input unit prices=output unit prices. Once we dispense with this
>assumption--and what is its justification--then there is nothing arbitrary
>about Marx's price theory. There is indeed a certain tautology in the way
>he theorizes the relationship between prices and values, but this seems to
>me intrinsic to conceptual development.
Just to set the record straight, there's no assumption in the NI that
input and output prices are equal. You don't need this to define
value added at market prices. When prices are changing you do need to
make some correction for the change in value of stocks, a point
Andrew, John, and I among others have discussed at considerable
length.
Duncan
-- Duncan K. Foley Leo Model Professor Department of Economics Graduate Faculty New School University 65 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212)-229-5906 messages: (212)-229-5717 fax: (212)-229-5724 e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT