Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Sep 07 2007 - 04:40:26 EDT

Nakajima uses this approach.

The stock matrix adequately models different turnover times in circulating capital since it will
have entries for stocks of raw materials, and can be extended to cover work in progress by increasing
the number of commodity types. This is implicit in Sraffas analysis of joint products.
Paul Cockshott

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Fred Moseley
Sent: Fri 9/7/2007 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods
Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>:

> The standard way is to use a stock matrix as well as flow matrix, if you have
> that you can ignore turnover period since the information in it is encoded
> in the combination of the two matrices.

Hi Paul, I am not talking about unequal turnover periods between fixed
capital and circulating capital (although that is also a big problem in
Sraffian theory, dealt with by the dubious method of treating fixed
capital as "joint products".)  Rather, I am talking about unequal
turnover perods of circulating capital across industries.  This is what
Sraffian theory cannot incorporate, for reasons I explained in my last
message (and copied below).


P.S.  Please send me a reference or two that present the "standard way"
that you mention.  Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L on behalf of glevy@PRATT.EDU
> Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] models with unequal turnover periods
>> Still playing on my one string violin, what about cases when the turnover
>> period for constant capital is unknown?
> Hi Michael P:
> Then you include it as a variable with an unknown magnitude in the model.
> There are different ways in which this could be done: e.g. one could make
> certain assumptions that could give you a _range_ for the variable.  This
> would, of course, introduce uncertainty into the model and mean that it
> wouldn't yield a single result.  Yet, this is uncertainty which is a
> consequence of the essential nature of the subject matter: i.e. it is
> _real_ uncertainty and shouldn't be eliminated for purposes of
> mathematical convenience.
> In solidarity, Jerry

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT