From: Ian Wright (iwright@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 12:18:45 EDT
Hi Jerry > I think your analogies above are off-base and misleading. I think that's a bit harsh. Assuming commodity types that only require labour for their manufacture is a special case of the more general situation of commodity types that require both other commodities and labour for their manufacture. It isn't an analogy -- the simplified production structure is a specialisation of the parameters of the more general production structure, just as a circle is a specialisation of the parameters of an ellipse. I agree that models can be too simple to be relevant. I also think that it is important to understand simple cases if one has any hope to understand more complex cases. The simple case of the MELT I introduced was intended as a starting point for further discussion, a small back-of-the-envelope calculation. I was hoping to get to the point where we could discuss whether the MELT is only a theoretical measure or if in fact it also has a real causal role (do not have an answer). But maybe I am asking too much from a discussion list -- collaborative thinking on the internet has its limitations. As to your requirements for a model of capitalism, one point struck me. Duncan Foley in his article "Sraffa's legacy" (Camb. J. Econ. 2003 27: 225-238) discusses whether it makes sense to construct models with explicit commodity types, given the problem of actually identifying types of commodities (e.g., is a Hewlett-Packard keyboard the same commodity as a Microsoft Natural keyboard?) and the continual churning of commodity types (e.g., is my PC today the same commodity type as my PC two years ago?). I am conflicted about this at the moment, but am inclined towards abstracting from explicit commodity types. ATB -Ian. On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:40:08 -0400, Gerald A. Levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> wrote:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT