From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sat Mar 17 2007 - 17:13:30 EDT
Ian: Ajit, on the specific and narrow issue of whether M, as the total money-capital advanced, can be taken to as given data, the answer is of course yes. M appears in many different forms no doubt, from cash to electronic transfers to firm accounts, but nonetheless it is a real quantity, as objective as the physical inputs arriving at the factory gates. Paul: Physical inputs are easy to identify but change the definition of the forms you will accept for M and you get very different quanties. 1. Does it mean cash balances ( notes and coin, cash in hand ) 2. Does it mean credit balances with the banking system? 3. Does it include overdrafts with the banks? 4. Does it include overdraft rights with the banks? When summing 2 and 3 above is the answer 2+ |3| or 2+3 or |2+3| ? To whom is the money capital advanced? To workers? - but they are paid in arrears To other capitalists? in which case how does one form a sum of it over all capitalists? Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Ian Wright Sent: Fri 3/16/2007 5:44 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > Ajit: > How much is your M, Fred? Just tell me how much is > your M. If you are going to begin your theory with a > given M, you need to know how much it is. I'm not > asking for any explanation, just tell me how much it > is. Where do you get your data for M? If you are > unable to tell us how much is your M, then how could > you claim that M increases to (M + dM)? Just think > about it? Ajit, on the specific and narrow issue of whether M, as the total money-capital advanced, can be taken to as given data, the answer is of course yes. M appears in many different forms no doubt, from cash to electronic transfers to firm accounts, but nonetheless it is a real quantity, as objective as the physical inputs arriving at the factory gates. One of my difficulties with Sraffa is that his objectivism does not extend to counting money-flows in the economy. The man in the moon is, as it were, blind to monetary character of capitalist production.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT