From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 09:15:49 EST
Hi, Alas, i have to rush off for the weekend - so proper reply must wait but wanted to pursue one thing: __________________________ > > You write: > > The problem of > new machines etc. being produced is not a problem > within the context of a given system of basic goods. > All new goods including new kinds of machines are > non-basics for the given system of production. > Cheers, > ajit sinha > > > I reply: at best this remark seems to confirm the > point I was making. In the real world, 'technical > change' includes the introduction of a new machine > to the production process. Therefore (1) the correct > analysis (one which does not assume away the very > point at issue) of such technical change must be a > comparison between 2 different *basic* systems; ________________________ Yes, but why comparison between two systems must imply comparison of prices in the two systems. One may be able to compare various other things without taking price comparisons into account. ______________________ I reply: The only relevant things you can compare are unitless rates such as profit rate or income shares. Not enough basis for understanding the economy, surely? Especially when one considers that the movement through time of these rates depends upon the movement through time of the numerator and denominator and that one can't have much clue about this (absent appropriate value theory) since neither can be compared (no common substance hence no common unit) through time! We need an LTV to give us something continuous thorugh time to let us do economics (your point about different versions of LTV is well taken -- our conversion may help you see where my own version is coming from) Many thanks - full reply nxt week. Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EST