From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 16:48:04 EDT
Quoting Ian Wright <ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM>: > Hello Paul, > > I don't understand how there can be more than one basic sector > if the definition of a basic sector is those commodities that directly > or indirectly enter into the production of every other commodity. > Given a set of basic commodities, A, and the set of non-basic commodities, > B, then every commodity in B requires all the elements of A for > its production. If there is a second set of basics, C, then either: > (i) a commodity in C enters into the production of all commodities in > B, in which case C is an element of the first set of basics, A, or > (ii) a commodity in C does not enter into the production of all > commodities in B, in which case it is not a basic commodity, and is an > element of B. > Consider 3 departments Ia produces means of production some of which it uses itself Ib produces means of production some of which it uses itself II is wage goods which use both Ia and Ib Ia and Ib however are autarchic One could complicate this by allowing II to split into IIa and IIb each of which is fed by its own basic sector but both of which are consumed as wages by workers in all sectors. There is now no single basic sector acting as an upper limit on the rate of profit. At first sight, it would seem that were there a uniform rate of profit, then whichever of the sectors Ia and Ib had the smaller eigen value would constrain the overall rate of profit. I am not sure about this though > ? > > -Ian. > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT