From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Thu Jul 19 2007 - 11:54:10 EDT
> But I think it is simply a wrong > interpretation to interpret Sraffa's dated labor > approach to price determination in a growth context. If you find this particular interpretation of the formula for standard labour-values unfamiliar then concentrate on the two other interpretations I mention in the paper. The standard formula for labour-values is not Sraffa's equation by the way, it goes as far back at least to Dmitriev, whom he read, but didn't reference. To claim that this interpretation is "simply wrong" you should demonstrate that it cannot consistently translate the system of mathematical equations into economically meaningful statements. That would be a critique that might shift my position on the growth interpretation of the hypothetical process of replacement. > Marx (and Ricardo as well) measures labor-values in a > similar manner with 0 power on the rate of profits > throughout. If you mean that the standard formula for labour-values is an accurate translation of some aspects of Marx's and Ricardo's labour-value accounting then I agree. > 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. Joint production is irrelevant to this paper, which is a critique of the formula for standard labour-values in single production. However, I'm certain that the neo-Ricardian results regarding joint production and value theory are severely compromised due to the transfer of the labour-cost accounting error from single production into the joint production framework. The appendix contains an analysis of standard vs. nonstandard labour-values in the context of proportionate growth. I wrote this especially for you since you challenged me to analyze this case and claimed that my labour-cost accounting would "break down" in this context. But you were confusing the issue of a distributed vs. undistributed surplus with the concept of growth.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT