From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Tue Oct 31 2006 - 03:39:20 EST
What if the capitalists pay themselves a wage for their labour of supervision which is distinct from their profit? Quoting Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG>: > Hi Ajit > > > No. There is no logical problem with Sraffa's > > accounting > > Applied to simple reproduction Sraffa's labour-cost accounting assumes > zero capitalist consumption during the period of replacement. > Therefore, it does not measure replacement costs for an economy with a > capitalist class. It applies only to simple commodity production. This > is "the elephant in the room". > > In contrast, real-cost labour values, of which Sraffian labour values > are a special case, does calculate the correct replacement costs in > both cases (simple commodity production and simple reproduction). > > Simply stating "there is no logical problem" does not get to grips > with my critique. > > > and it is not different from Marx's accounting of labor-values. > > Who mentioned Marx? > > > I hope you would agree > > that logically two accounting systems cannot exist: > > one for simple reproduction and another for expanded > > reproduction. > > Now at which point did you demonstrate that real-cost accounting > differs in these cases? You are relying on this point, but without an > analysis of real-cost accounting applied to proportionate growth it is > mere assertion. > > > 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, > > How can you claim that? > > I'm concentrating on simple reproduction, not because real-cost > accounting fails to apply to expanded reproduction, but because I want > you to admit there is a problem with simple reproduction before moving > to the next stage. > > Are you unwilling to discuss simple reproduction because you realise > the force of my critique in this case? > > > the onus is on you to prove that your system is not logically > inconsistent. > > Isn't the onus on you to refute my claim that your labour-cost > accounting is incorrect in the case of simple reproduction? To > paraphrase Steedman, if the approach fails to hold in this special > case what reason is there to think it will hold in more general cases? > And remember -- the TP debate has traditionally been held in the > context of Sraffian models of simple reproduction (not expanded > reproduction). > > Best wishes, > > -Ian. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 02 2006 - 00:00:03 EST