From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Sun Dec 02 2007 - 20:41:41 EST
Dear Jerry, That is a very easy point to grasp. Sraffa's analysis of capitalism holds for w (wages) greater than 0. However, we may step outside capitalism to look at what holds when w=0, just as when studying physical motion, we may step outside the motion of bodies subject to friction on inclined planes by looking, as Galileo did, at the case where friction = 0. That too, is a not so simple but still relatively easy point, I think, Cheers, Ian Associate Professor Ian Hunt Dept of Philosophy School of Humanities Flinders University Box 2100, GPO, Adelaide, 5001 On 02/12/2007, at 12:23 PM, GERALD LEVY wrote: > Ian H: > > If you say that a formula holds from A to Z or from soup > to nuts or from birth to death, then the formula > has to hold in A, soup, and birth respectively to be > logically consistent. This shouldn't be a very hard point > to grasp. > > > > all I am saying is Sraffa is entitled to show that the rate of > capitalist profit must be strictly less than his R, > > > My disagreement, in this instance, is not with Sraffa - whose > _PCBMC_ was intended for the purpose of a prelude to a > critique of neo-neo-classicism. > > 8) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST