From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Feb 09 2006 - 14:11:16 EST
Hi Ian, Regarding your second question, 'why substance?', I think it is important to address this question only after having addressed a prior question, 'why scalar?'. The reason is that there can be no argument for a 'substance' prior to the argument for a scalar. At least I do not offer any such argument. Turning to your first question, you ask, "[w]hy do you think that an economic structure (e.g. i/o matrix) *must* be reduced to a non-price scalar in order for the economy to reproduce over time?" My answer begins with the familiar point that reproduction is *caused* by a scalar, a scalar that we have been calling 'price' [this name is not accurate given the arguments of my last post - an issue I ignore below]. This is not a matter of contingency. It is *continually* caused by this scalar throughout the existence of capitalism. This scalar is the dominant aspect of the social regulation of reproduction. Therefore this scalar must be necessarily related to feasible reproduction proportions (i.e. to self-reproducible economic structures). I spelt out a similar proposition before so I think you agree with it. Now, we know what is and what is not necessarily related to feasible reproduction proportions by scrutinising them. (To comprehend an object requires comprehension of its necessary relations). And on scrutinising them, there is only one scalar to which they are necessarily related, viz. SNLT. The extent to which Sraffian prices are related with feasible reproduction proportions can only be determined by this prior scrutiny of such proportions. If *no* scalar is necessarily related to feasible reproduction proportions then price (a scalar) cannot be either. If there is such a scalar (and there is one such, viz. SNLT), and this scalar is not identical with price (which it is not) then this scalar *must* tether price. (This tethering is dynamic and invisible to the static Sraffian calculation). Otherwise the thing that continually causes feasible reproduction proportions (price) is self-contradictorily going to have no necessary relation to feasible reproduction proportions. A telltale sign that we have some sort of deep disagreement here is that the above just seems plain and obvious to me. Clearly it seems plainly and obviously wrong to you. I wonder if my exposition has at least helped to find where, precisely, our disagreement lies? Many thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 11 2006 - 00:00:01 EST