From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2006 - 20:08:35 EDT
Hi Paul > The point is that Smith had an ambiguity between defining the value > of corn as the labour required to produce corn or the labour commanded > by corn. If there is no 'profit of stock' then the two are the same, > but clearly in an economy with capitalist exploitation they differ. No. Simplifying, exploitation is unpaid labour-time: the money wage isn't sufficient to buy the whole net product. An equality in equilibrium between labour-embodied and labour-commanded doesn't imply that workers can buy the whole net product. In Sraffa's surplus representation and its circular flow representation the money wage only covers workers' consumption. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT