[OPE-L:7913] Re: Re: valuation of constant capital

From: Tony Tinker (TonyTinker@msn.com)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 10:03:13 EST

Some additional comments for Jerry (in blue).  

  Jerry now responds:
  Granted.    What I meant to suggest  is that accurately 
  describing the real changes in the exchange value of 
  means of production following technological change
  is a more *basic* theoretical issue than what accounting
  method is chosen by firms to estimate these changes.
  Thus, one method might be better for auditing purposes
  while another method might  embody a better description 
  of the underlying economic processes.  
  In solidarity, Jerry
  I guess you are not going to let me get away with hints, so now I'll declare my epistemic colors.  If one subscribes to the view that all science is political (centering on the kind of social reality we seek to effect) then I don't see much place for an objectivist episteme, that purports to document "real" changes and "better" descriptions of the underlying economic processes.  The test of an accounting or economic measure is not some dubious "accuracy", but the kind of life we engender.  The assertion that one captures a "real" picture of phenomenon (one that is not socially constructed) is derivative of a representational philosophy that I don't subscribe to  -- either for accounting, or for Marxism.  

  Fraternally, TT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 00:00:01 EST