From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Jul 19 2007 - 02:32:20 EDT
I'm in India right now and have not followed this conversation at all. But I think it is simply a wrong interpretation to interpret Sraffa's dated labor approach to price determination in a growth context. Marx (and Ricardo as well) measures labor-values in a similar manner with 0 power on the rate of profits throughout. In any case, dated labor approach is applicable only in a context when a sector produces only one commodity. In the case of multiple production (joint-production) the approach is not workable. But in joint production cases first of all it is very difficult to define labor-value of commodities and even if you can do this, you cannot avoid negative labor-value for some commodities. Cheers, ajit sinha --- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: > > 1. That no growth is implied in dated labour > values, what is implied is a diminishing fraction of > the total labour of past time intervals being > necessary for the current output. > > Under my interpretation there is a process of > growth. But if your > proposed "finite" interpretation make sense of the > mathematics then > feel free to translate my argument into terms you > are more familiar > with. The standard and nonstandard formulae will > denote different > economic processes under your interpretation too. > > But as already stated the argument is independent of > the chosen > interpretation. It is purely a matter of > presentation. > > > 2. This diminishing fraction terminates within a > finite time horizon because all units of means of > production are integers not real numbers. 0.3 of a > hydraulic press is not a means of production. Note > that Kantorovich certainly realised this and was > careful to present all his quantities as integers. > So yes, this integral analysis of linear production > processes has been in the literature since 1938. > > Any integer can be represented as a convergent > infinite series. It is > eccentric to reject infinite series representations > on such grounds. > > > The example you give from electrostatics is > classical electro mechanics which is cast in > Newtonian form with continuously differentiable > fields. This has been rejected by physicists as only > an approximation since Einsteins 1905 paper on the > photo electric effect. All physical quantities are > quantised - thus integer rather than real. > > You are mixing up so many issues here it is > difficult to know where to begin. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT