From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2004 - 10:12:05 EDT
--- Allin Cottrell <cottrell@WFU.EDU> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > > A=B > > B=C > > Therefore, A=C > > xdollar equals y of a composite commodity that > requires z labor hours > > to produce; hence x dollars is equivalent to z > labor hours. From this > > equivalence one can calculate the MELT and the > "value of money". > > Why would one use such a roundabout and error-prone > means of > calculating the MELT? The obvious approach is > Foley's: take the ratio > of the money-value of net output to the aggregate > labour time embodied > in that net output. This is both easier -- given > the available > official statistics -- and more accurate. Your > proposal contains an > arbitrary and potentially fluctuating element, > namely, the > relationship between the price-to-value ratio for a > "small" composite > commodity such as the one Greenspan allegedly uses, > and the > price-to-value ratio for social output as a whole. ___________________ Allin, you should have made it explicit that the aggregate labor time embodied in the net output in Foley's system assumes that all unskilled labor is abstract labor. Thus abstract labor is already assumed before money comes into the picture. All the talk about the money doing the abstracting leads to MELT melting away before one's eyes. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 22 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT