From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Dec 29 2007 - 10:36:26 EST
Thanks, Jurriaan. I think I grasp the meaning of what you are saying more now. > I just think the neo-Ricardians tacitly accept many conventional > accounting concepts in the attempt to explain the origin of the surplus, > and I think that is problematic. > In an accounting sense, for instance, the measured magnitude of the output > shown in the ledger must be equal to the expenditure on the output, and > consequently inputs must exactly equal outputs. And that is also exactly > what is assumed in an input-output system. I think in real life that isn't > the case, what we are dealing with is an artifact of accounting procedure. > In part, the outcome of the economic controversy hinges on how the inputs > and outputs themselves are defined. The originators of I/O theory, as I recall, accepted marginal utility theory. But, it seems that I/O accounting is consistent with some other theories of value, but not all. I wonder: how would (or could?) the release and tying up of capital be treated in an I/O accounting framework? [And, has anyone ever attempted to develop a 'dynamic I/O model" ?] In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST