From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Mon Jun 12 2006 - 11:12:16 EDT
Hi Ajit > Ian, I don't think it was a silly point. I also don't > think your last message allays my fears. I would > rather stick to clarifying this point first, because > this might bring the basic problem, which I think is a > logical problem, with your approach to light. My point > is that output cannot become its own input. The two > tons of corn as input was not used out of the ten tons > of corn, it existed before the ten tons of corn was > produced. Indeed. That is why I thought your "speed of light" complaint didn't make sense. 4 tons of the output on the RHS is not identically the 4 tons of capitalist consumption on the LHS. Just as 2 tons of the output on the RHS is not identically the 2 tons of raw materials on the LHS. > Are you now saying that you knew that > capitalists consumed 4 tons of corn out of the output > of (t-1) period of production, and this is what you > are replacing from the current ten tons of corn > output? If this is your position, then please confirm. Yes, but I am not "now saying" it. I have always said it. Both capitalist consumption and worker consumption is specified, i.e. the surplus is fully distributed both in nominal and physical terms. This is a state of self-replacing equilibrium, not a non-equilibrium state. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT