From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Sep 22 2007 - 12:34:51 EDT
Quoting Ian Hunt <ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU>: > Dear Fred, > It is what Medio does. Brody shows that inputs can be measured in the > quantities of any basic good and doesn't think there is any decisive > reason for favouring value as the units. My view is that value is > favoured because control and discipline of social labour is in all > industries a crucial component of social relations of production. > > In the simple case, assuming one technique of production of > production and no fixed capital or joint products you can get the > value units from the equation l = A l + L. You can get the value > units in more complicated cases, but they will depend on expectations > of profitable lifetimes of machines (to get the flow of value from > fixed capital) and prices of products for dividing the value of > output between joint products. Hi Ian, How are unequal turnover periods taken into account in this equation? Does it assume that all industries have the same turnover period? Would you please also give the equation(s) for fixed capital, since Medio does not do that? And what are the elements in the A matrix that correspond to fixed capital? How are they determined? > Sraffa was engaged in a different exercise from regarding the > division of social labour as the the basis of laws of development of > commodity production (He was interested in the inverse dependence of > the rate of profit on wages rather than laws of development) I am not talking about a theory of “laws of development”, but rather a theory of long-run equilibrium prices, that takes into account unequal turnover periods across industries. Comradely, Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT