Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 07:54:01 EST
> Not at all. > We nearly all use notation that derives from Sraffa and to a lesser > extent Leontief. As far as I am aware it was they that were responsible > for the importation of matrix representations into Marxist economic > discourse. Paul C, Taken literally, the above combined with the excerpt below from a previous post can be interpreted as making one or both of the following claims: i) the mathematical techniques employed alter our view of production; ii) our view of production is that it can be represented by (linear and) matrix algebra. Is that your position? i) seems to me to be arse-backwards: i.e. our view of production determines (or should determine) what quantitative techniques are employed to describe that process rather than vice versa. ii) seems to assert that the production process can be described as a linear process. Yet, shouldn't we view production as part of a non-linear dynamic process? You also make a history of thought claim that Sraffa and Leontief "were responsible for the importation of matrix representations into Marxist economic discourse." Have you forgotten about von Bortkiewicz? In solidarity, Jerry >> [...] if your view of production has been formed by Sraffa, >> which for all of us is probably true. > That's a rather startling claim. Was it a typo?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 16 2005 - 00:00:01 EST