From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 05 2006 - 10:39:00 EDT
Ian, I forgot to reply to your comment on the 'beans', you say: "I think you're missing something more important here. You think "beans" should disappear because you assume that the rate of profit is determined by the basic subsystem. In a fully specified state of self-replacing equilibrium the rate of profit is not determined by the basic subsystem, it is determined by the system as a whole. The "beans", in this case, are "blocking goods" or, to use a biological term, "limiting factors" on the rate of growth of the system. The crucial question is whether the "beans" are also inputs. We do not know the answer to that if we stick with Sraffa's undistributed surplus." ___________ But if 'beans' are "blocking goods" then obviously they are basics, no? In that case the problem disappears since the maximum rate of profits cannot be more than what can be earned by 'beans' sector. The whole problem arises only if 'beans' are non-basics'. In that case, they cannot be "blocking" the growth of the basic sector. In your example, there is no surplus--because you redefine 'surplus' as necessary. Thus by definition there is no 'non-basics' in your system and the 'beans' problem simply becomes meaningless. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT