From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 11:26:57 EST
Ajit and I may not have 100% the same view on the theory of value, since I have not had a systematic discussion of with him on what his views of the stochastic approach to price theory are. However, I have great respect for the work of Sraffian, both for what it can tell us technically and for its critique of orthodox political economy. Note that a footnote in the paper says that the labour theory of value is not affected by the issue of numeraire in the same sense. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrew Brown Sent: 08 March 2005 14:40 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity Thanks to Paul and Ajit, Have always been intrigued by Ajit's interpretation of Sraffa (I speak as an interested layman on Sraffa). Paul, I did not think you subscribed to Ajit's interpretation. I thought you held a labour theory of value. I thought that Ajit, by contrast, takes Sraffa to show us that no theory of value, in any accepted sense, is possible (time -- technical change -- takes us from one 'system' to another, analogous to moving from one 'language game' to another, hence rather disabling economic science). But the conclusion to this paper talks about a fundamental limitation on economic science as such, in line with Ajit's view, thus I am puzzled that you (Paul) should subscribe to it. No doubt I have misinterpreted both of you - so apologies in advance for that... To my inexperienced mind, a more fundamental point than the one you make in this paper is that 'technical change', in the real world, involves change in the goods produced (e.g. a new machine). Given such a change, then you can't compare prices before and after change (as you do in the paper, by keeping the economy's goods qualitatively identical) can you? Albeit this doesn't provide the immanent angle on general equilibrium theory, but perhaps it makes Ajit's point more forcefully, when it comes to practical (real world) considerations? Or, more likely, I have got something wrong somewhere. On a related aside, perhaps you can help me with the following. The Okishio theorem tells us that viable technical changes cannot lower the rate of profit. But how can this tell us about 'real world' technical change, where, say, a new good is introduced? As far as I can see it can tell us nothing about such a case, but no doubt I have got all this horribly wrong (people as far apart as Steedman and Fine seem to me to have stated that 'empirically' the rate of profit can only fall if real wages rise). Many thanks, Andy -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Cockshott Sent: 08 March 2005 12:08 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [OPE-L] standard commodity Ajit and I have written a paper on the significance of the Standard commodity which, with Gerry's permission I am posting to the list. It is at: > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/Sraffa%20Standard%20Commodity.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 11 2005 - 00:00:01 EST