From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Oct 13 2006 - 11:17:42 EDT
Hi Ajit > I'm surprised that you are still not convinced after > our last exchange! ajit I wouldn't expect fundamental theoretical differences to get resolved after one or two debates. The history of the transformation problem is an extreme example. But nothing was resolved in our last exchange, although I thought it very useful. For example, I learnt that Sraffians seem to think that Sraffa's simultaneous equations give them some insight into dynamics via the device of an undistributed surplus (i.e. a specified nominal income distribution and an unspecified real income distribution). My logico-mathematical demonstration that the standard Sraffian labour value formula does not measure replacement costs for capitalist simple reproduction stands, and awaits a refutation. In this context, Sraffa's labour-values assume that capitalist consumption is zero during the period of replacement, i.e. production by means of commodities apart from the commodity money-capital. Your labour-value formula only measures replacement costs for simple commodity production. No wonder there are paradoxes when this approach is applied to capitalist production. All your theoretical difficulties with the logical possibility of labour theories of value derive from the classical problematic of divergence of prices of production from labour values due to profit-equalizing prices of production. What if this classical problematic is due to a mis-specification of labour conservation in the presence of money-capital? Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST