**Next message:**Chai-on Lee: "[OPE-L:4020] RE: Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)"**Previous message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:4018] Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Re Andrew K #4017: You write: >That is the key question of all quantitative value theory of whatever >stripe (neoclassical, post-Keynesian, Sraffian, etc.), IMHO. The answer >depends on the theory in question. P[t] is given BEFORE production, and >let's assume A and B are given. Then either the P[t+1] are determined >exogenously (e.g., by "demand," as in PK theory) which then determines r; >or r is determined exogenously, which then determines the P[t+1]. "Endogenously"? [...] >So what? What is the justification for holding the matrix of >technological and real wage coefficients, A, constant over time? I think it's implicitly assumed the existence of some kind of "Walrasian auctionner" who solves the system *atemporally* in such a way that input and output prices are the same. Market is then conceived as a kind of "computer" searching for equilibrium given some parameters. Additionally, it sounds pretty "materialistic" to use technology and real wage as the parameters used to determine prices. A.R.

**Next message:**Chai-on Lee: "[OPE-L:4020] RE: Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)"**Previous message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:4018] Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST
*