Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2006 - 20:08:35 EDT 

Hi Paul

> The point is that Smith had an ambiguity between defining the value
> of corn as the labour required to produce corn or the labour commanded
> by corn. If there is no 'profit of stock' then the two are the same,
> but clearly in an economy with capitalist exploitation they differ.

No. Simplifying, exploitation is unpaid labour-time: the money wage
isn't sufficient to buy the whole net product. An equality in
equilibrium between labour-embodied and labour-commanded doesn't imply
that workers can buy the whole net product. In Sraffa's surplus
representation and its circular flow representation the money wage
only covers workers' consumption.

Best wishes,
-Ian.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT