From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Jun 23 2006 - 12:52:23 EDT
Hi Ajit I will reply in full to your message when I get the chance, although there are points in my last message you have not addressed. For now I'd like to correct some factual inaccuracies. > you have desolved the notion of surplus and thus > exploitation, and then you tells us that labor theory > of value is valid. In the circular flow: - there is a surplus - there is exploitation and it is a theorem that surplus value is conserved in total profit, total value is conserved in total price, and the value rate of profit is equal to the price rate of profit. How could such a theorem be derived if the notion of surplus and exploitation is "dissolved"? > You do not formally want to go beyond Sraffa's 1st chapter and tell me > that I'm begging the question; but Sraffa and most of us want to go beyond that. The circular flow is constructed from Sraffa's surplus equations, presented in chapter 2. The deduction of the existence of the commodity money-capital in Sraffa's framework is an example of my engagement with Sraffa, post chapter 1 subsistence equations. > This time you have introduced technical change to attack Sraffa. I explicitly stated in my last message that I choose not to critique (I prefer "critique" to "attack") Sraffa's (single production) theory on the grounds that it cannot handle technical change in the production period. In contrast, by introducing changes in the real distribution of income in a production period, you are "attacking" Sraffa's theory applied to the case of self-replacing equilibrium. (The circular flow is Sraffa's theory when workers and capitalists consumption is specified -- a special case if you will.) Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT