[OPE-L:7324] [OPE-L:853] Re: Aggregate

Ajit Sinha (SINHA@cdedse.ernet.in)
08 Apr 99 16:35:44 IST (+0530)

> In OPE-L835, among other things, Ajit wrote:
> I think we need to think about aggregation and disaggregation
> issue
> here. The necessary and surplus labor distinction can be
> understood
> and calculated only when all the productive sectors are taken
> into
> account simultaneously. So let's call this aggregative analysis.
> Now the question is that the reproduction of the system requires
> exchange of commodities between sectors. The question is: what
> does
> one gain by defining commodities in labor time units. And how
> does
> one get over the transformation problem. The labor accounting at
> the aggregative case seems okay, but at the dis aggregative level
> there seems to be a problem. We need to think, what does one gain
> by defining a commodity as so much of labor time?

>John E.:
> My question: I'm not sure what you mean when you say that as we
> consider the aggregate -- the labor accounting seems okay.
> Do you simply mean that we know the sum of living labor time
> spent in all sectors? If so, what do you do with constant
> capital -- advanced and used up? How do we know labor time
> involved in the aggregate?
>From the physical input-output table you can derive
all the labor values including the labor-values of constant
capital. So i'm not leaving constant capital out in my aggregate
labor accounting.
> It seems to me that for the aggregate we would agree that what
> we know is the total labor time, the total price of all the
> constant capital, and the total price of all outputs including
> the fixed capital that can be used to produce the next aggregate.
We don't know the prices. Finding out the prices is the theoretical
problem isn't it? There is no theoretical problem in reducing
constant capital to labor time units. I hope this clearifies a bit.
Cheers, ajit sinha
> That's it. I'll stop here as I'm not sure what you "see" at
> this level.
> John