Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 05:15:11 EST

--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >The fact of the matter is that mathematical
> equations
> >do not give you the direction of causality. It is
> the
> >role of the theory to provide the causal direction.
> So
> >the manipulation of mathematical equations or
> >identities are no guide to the causal inferences of
> >the theory. Cheers, ajit sinha
> Well if one's theory at best establishes the
> existence of relations
> between the wage rate and the profit rate and
> relative prices and
> physical quantities on the basis of given and fixed
> conditions so
> marginal concepts do not come into play at all,
> then how
> does one have a causal theory of change over time?
> Rakesh
Well! If you are referring to Sraffa's book, then, of
course, Sraffa is not developing any causal theory
there. The function of his book is to show that the
neoclassical supply function, which is built on a
supposed causal relation between prices and methods of
production is illegitimate. But this does not mean
that Sraffa is saying that there cannot be any causal
theory of change. But you should keep it in mind that
Hume's empiricist philosophy rejected any
philosophical basis to causality. For Hume causality
is nothing but a belief or habit of mind. Hume's
challenge on causation has never been answered. All
Kant could do is to make the relationship of cause and
effect a priori. From a logical perspective,
Wittgenstein in the Tractatus declared that
'Superstition is nothing but a belief in causal
nexus'. Mathematical logic does not admit of
causality. Because no causal proposition can be made
with certainty. Cheers, ajit sinha

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 00:00:00 EST