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

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 09:49:56 EST

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

>> the three department model is the smallest possible one which
>> allows us to see how means of production, workers' and
>> capitalists' consumption are produced.
>
>
>
> No, Dave.  One can see how means of production and means of
> consumption are (re)produced within a two department model.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry


I didn't write "consumption" but workers' *and* capitalists' consumption.
It is precisely because the set of economic activities S_c that produces
the latter is not necessarily identical to the set S_w that produces the
former.

We need a third sector to grasp what are the inputs and outputs of the set
of activities that are in S_c but not S_w. We need it because it is
relevant to our discussion. Otherwise we might as well have reduce the
problem to a 1-sector model.

In principle, the more sectors we use the better: aggregation destroys
information.

//Dave Z

• Next message: Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L] Peter Custers: campaigner - theoretician"
• Previous message: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] 2,3, many departments? 100 blooming departments?"
• In reply to: 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