From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 10:30:09 EDT
In Sraffas theory the material surplus R is a dimensionless number being in effect the greatest eigen value of the technology matrix. It is measured as units of the standard commodity/ units of the standard commodity and hence is a dimensionless scalar Diego Guerrero wrote: > Paul C. wrote: > > I don’t see why Phil is opposed to the notion of a material > > surplus? > > > I am opposed too inasmuch as this material surplus is conceived as > something different from (labour) time surplus. Time, and so labour > time, is a material fact; time is also one of the most important > variables in physics. Labour time can be applied to, and conceived > of, every commodity, including services. No other physical variable can > be predicated of all commodities. People defending a notion of "material > surplus" in production (different from time) should tell us in terms of > what magnitude could we compute it: weigh, volume, surface...? It should > be the same physical property and it should be present in any commodity, > including services. > > Moreover, can ayone say which is the surplus obtained when for instance > transforming a Ton. of ore gold in a jewel of 10 grams of pure gold? > > Diego > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Paul Cockshott <mailto:wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> > *To:* OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU <mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:58 AM > *Subject:* Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics > > I would be keen to defend the notion of a basic sector. > > > > In reply to Ian. > > Sraffa says that in principle the wage should be split > > into a portion necessary for the reproduction of labour > > power, and a portion that constitutes part of the surplus > > that can be struggled over. I think this is certainly correct. > > If one took that view of it, the basic sector would include > > those products whose production was necessary to the > > reproduction of the working population. > > > > I am unconvinced that things would be materially changed > > by expressing things as continuous flows rather than > > as annual rounds of production. One would still get > > R as a variable expressing now the maximal instantaneous > > rate of expansion of the economy as a time derivative > > rather than expressing the expansion as an annual > > rate. > > > > I don’t see why Phil is opposed to the notion of a material > > surplus? > > > -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT