Re: [OPE-L] The phenomenology of prices

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Dec 29 2007 - 10:36:26 EST

Thanks, Jurriaan.  I think I grasp the meaning of what you are
more now.

> I just think the
neo-Ricardians tacitly accept many conventional
> accounting
concepts in the attempt to explain the origin of the surplus,
and I think that is problematic.
> In an accounting sense, for
instance, the measured magnitude of the output
> shown in the
ledger must be equal to the expenditure on the output, and
consequently inputs must exactly equal outputs. And that is also exactly

> what is assumed in an input-output system. I think in real life
that isn't
> the case, what we are dealing with is an artifact of
accounting procedure.
> In part, the outcome of the economic
controversy hinges on how the inputs
> and outputs themselves are

The originators of I/O theory, as I recall,
accepted marginal utility theory.
But, it seems that I/O accounting
is consistent with some other theories
of value, but not

I wonder: how would (or could?) the release
and tying up of capital be
treated in  an I/O
accounting framework? [And, has anyone ever
attempted to
develop a 'dynamic I/O model" ?]

solidarity,   Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST