Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Wed Jul 18 2007 - 18:47:14 EDT

> 1. That no growth is implied in dated labour values, what is implied is a diminishing fraction of the total labour of past time intervals being necessary for the current output.

Under my interpretation there is a process of growth. But if your
proposed "finite" interpretation make sense of the mathematics then
feel free to translate my argument into terms you are more familiar
with. The standard and nonstandard formulae will denote different
economic processes under your interpretation too.

But as already stated the argument is independent of the chosen
interpretation. It is purely a matter of presentation.

> 2. This diminishing fraction terminates within a finite time horizon because all units of means of production are integers not real numbers. 0.3 of a hydraulic press is not a means of production. Note that Kantorovich certainly realised this and was careful to present all his quantities as integers. So yes, this integral analysis of linear production processes has been in the literature since 1938.

Any integer can be represented as a convergent infinite series. It is
eccentric to reject infinite series representations on such grounds.

> The example you give from electrostatics is classical electro mechanics which is cast in Newtonian form with continuously differentiable fields. This has been rejected by physicists as only an approximation since Einsteins 1905 paper on the photo electric effect. All physical quantities are quantised - thus integer rather than real.

You are mixing up so many issues here it is difficult to know where to begin.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT