On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >If we can't work this out on the simplifying assumption of no > >tecnical change, there's little hope of working it out with > >ongoing technical change superimposed. > > Well, let's see.... > > >On the interpretation you're proposing, how are you going to > >write the next table? You'll have to put 420.00 at the foot of > >the "c" column and 280.00 at the foot of the "v" column as these > >"greater quantities" of output are put to use. > > Correct. > > > If you write 200 > >for aggregate profit, you've then got an aggregate price of 900, > >not equal to total value. > > Why would I write 200 for aggregate profit for the next period? > Instead maintain r as 1.3, then aggregate value or price in the next > period is 910, profit or sv is 210. It would be unreasonable for it > not to increase since more labor time will now be embodied in the > final product. Argh! Where is this increase in labour time supposed to be coming from? In your last post the increase in output was simply the result of an increase in the physical productivity of labour! Now it suddenly requires an increase in labour input. You're changing the subject as fast as I can show you what's wrong with your previous assertions. Total price doesn't equal total value, so you fix it up by increasing the total value, when by assumption we're trying to produce the price-of-production counterpart of a _given_ value system (the original table). Now I _really_ give up. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST