Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 08:34:47 EST

• Next message: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Previous message: Jerry Levy: "[OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• In reply to: Jerry Levy: "[OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Next in thread: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Jerry wrote:

> I don't favor a three department model. If you look at the issue using a
> two department model - where what you and others call Department III is
> simply included in Department II - you will get different results.


You are sidestepping the issue here. All successful sciences have to make
use of formalisations. For our analysis of inputs and outputs of economic
activities we need an N-sector model, and the three department model is
the smallest possible one which allows us to see how means of production,
workers' and capitalists' consumption are produced.

//Dave Z

• Next message: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Previous message: Jerry Levy: "[OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• In reply to: Jerry Levy: "[OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Next in thread: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST