From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 14 2006 - 06:17:44 EDT
--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: > 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. _____________________ Ian, I don't want to revive the debate. But my basic point is that you have created a system of subsistence economy--you are not the first one to confuse simple reproduction with the subsistence economy because subsistence economy is one example of simple reproduction. Your whole argument about money sector etc. is a mathematical smoke and mirrior, which is hiding this simple fact from you. The real test of your accounting principle would be its application in an expanding reproduction scheme. If your accounting system breaks down in this case then you will realise that my criticism was right all along. And again, if your accounting scheme breaks down in the case of expanding reproduction then it of course it couln't be Marx's accounting procedure as you cannot claim that Marx's accounting was designed only for simple reproduction of the capitalist system. So apply the test and see what happens. If your accounting passes this test, then you may have something! 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 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST