From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 05:21:38 EDT
Hi Ian Quoting Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM>: > > I've mentioned this before, but I think I can make it with a little more > clarity now. The Sraffian distinction between basics and non-basics is due > to the incompleteness of the Sraffian price equation, which treats the > "surplus" to the labour and capitalist sectors as only an output, never an > input. This incompleteness manifests as the problem of "self-reproducing > basics", which Sraffa considered a "freak case", but is on the contrary > quite a reasonable possibility. Kurz and Salvadori go through various > gymnastics to resolve the problem in their "Theory of Production", but, > importantly, all their proposed solutions require additional assumptions and > > information from outside the standard Sraffian equations (e.g., short-period > > considerations that involve demand) . My feeling is that the incompleteness > of the Sraffian price equation points to the fact that the concept of a > surplus is broken, a hangover from physiocratic ,"after the harvest" > conceptions, and we need to consider circular-flow, closed systems in which > the concept of a unique surplus goes, and with it the distinction between > basic and non-basic goods. > You have no need to persuade me that the concept of a *physical* surplus should be dropped, along with the distinction between basics and non-basics. But does not the move to a closed system throws out any concept of surplus? I want to see capitalism as a system for pumping out surplus labour in the form of money. Phil Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT