Paolo Giussani has noted that "[s]ince the slightest change in usevalue is
enough to make a product a novel product, looking at what happens every day I
feel comfortable to state that a very large part of products that come out of
each different 'production cycle' (Sinha uses this quite mysterious
expression) are novel products, and thus nonbasic products."
In response [OPE-L:5483] , Ajit Sinha opined that "[s]ince Sraffa's equations
are equations for industries or sectors rather than firms, they obviously
contain differentiated goods. No slight change will make every product
'non-basics', that's simply silly."
In other words, according to Ajit, Sraffa's system aggregates physically
distinct things.
This, however, was definitely NOT how Sraffa understood his own equations. In
a letter of 4th June, 1962, to Peter Newman, Sraffa wrote:
"You find a further ground for attacking the distinction between basics and
non-basics in the supposition of its being 'partly a matter of the degree of
aggregation in the system' (p. 67 [of Newman's article]). Now aggregation is
the act of the observer, whilst the distinction is based on a difference in
OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES. I have argued, for instance, that a tax on the price of
basics will lower the general rate of profits for a given wage, whereas a
similar tax on non-basics will leave the rate of profits unchanged. Surely,
to answer this, one must prove the alleged consequence does not follow,
instead of DROWNING THE DISTINCTION THROUGH AN APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF
AGGREGATION [caps added]."
Therefore the "commodities" of Sraffa's system are, according to the author
himself,
(1) NOT differentiated;
(2) classified according to their physical differences -- the "objective
properties" that distinguish one from another.
Now, even "the slightest change in usevalue is enough to make a product"
*objectively* different from another. Indeed, when the change in usevalue is
"slight" or not "is the act of the observer," a *subjective* one. Therefore,
any change in use-value whatsoever means that we have a different "commodity"
in Sraffa's sense, a "novel product." And therefore Paolo is 100 orrect:
"a very large part of products that come out of each different 'production
cycle' ... are novel products, and thus nonbasic products."
In ope-l 5479, Ajit wrote: "I cared to know a bit of Sraffian literature, and
had you shown the same care
before coming out with your gun blazing against Sraffa and the Sraffians you
would have known it too." Unfortunately, a bit of knowledge is a dangerous
thing. Sadly, Ajit seems not to have cared to know a bit more.
Andrew Kliman