From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Dec 03 2006 - 13:29:46 EST
Paul, Thank you! ajit sinha --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > Ajit I will reply to the other points later, just a > quick one on this. > ------------------- > > Paul > > > > I dont think one can be so dismissive of the > > empirical. > > You have to explain why the labour theory of > value, > > if > > wrong, gives the correct predictions. Why else is > > the > > rate of profit lower in sectors with a high > organic > > composition? > _______________________ > Statistics cannot give you more than corelation and > corelation can be accidental. But I do not need to > explain these corelation (and to what extent the > data > is reliable to be accepted as correct observation) > because I don't work in this area. But just for > curiosity, have you tried the same exercise with oil > or some other basic input used in lare proportion? > > > ---------------- > We addressed this in a 1997 paper > Labour time versus alternative value bases: a > research note > Cockshott,W.P. Cottrell,A. > Appeared in: > Cambridge Journal of Economics (Volume 21) > Publication Type: Journal > Page Numbers : 545-549 > Publisher: N/A > Year: 1997 > ISBN/ISSN: 0309-166X > Our study showed that for other inputs chosen from > the I/O > Table the correlation between for example oil price > and market price was > much much lower than for labour. This has > subsequently been confirmed > for about 20 other economies by the work of Maniatis > and Zacharaiah. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at > www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try > it now. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST