From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 14 2006 - 18:38:17 EDT
--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: > Yes, let's move on to discuss expanded reproduction. > But first let's > get agreement on the simpler case of simple > reproduction. > > The point is that Sraffa's labour-value accounting > system does not > pass the test of simple reproduction. It does not > measure replacement > costs. I invite contradiction on this point, > particularly as it is a > relatively straightforward matter of logic and > simple arithmetic > (e.g., the low-dimensional corn economy in the > appendix to my working > paper: http://65.254.51.50/%7Ewright/realCost.pdf ). > > Do you appreciate the problem that exists with > Sraffian labour-value > accounting in the context of simple reproduction? > > Best wishes, > -Ian. ____________________________ No. There is no logical problem with Sraffa's accounting and it is not different from Marx's accounting of labor-values. I hope you would agree that logically two accounting systems cannot exist: one for simple reproduction and another for expanded reproduction. Now both Sraffa's and Marx's accounting system remain the same in both the systems so at least they are logically consistent on this score. You have not been able to apply your accounting system to expanded reproduction situations, and as I had argued in our previous exchange that it cannot be applied--the onus is on you to prove that your system is not logically inconsistent. So put it to the test! 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