From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@WFU.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 - 20:12:59 EDT
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Ian Wright wrote: > The dated labour representation also makes Sraffa's earlier > point that only when r=0 are "the relative values of commodities > are in proportion to their labour cost, that is to say the > quantity of labour which directly and indirectly has gone to > produce them". Stick r=0 into Sraffa's dated labour > representation and you get the (incorrect) formula for > labour-values used by all neo-Ricardian critics of Marx's value > theory, from Samuelson onwards. Ian, Could you expand on this briefly? What is the formula you say is wrong (for r = 0), and what is the one you would regard as correct? Allin Cottrell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT