From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sat Jul 14 2007 - 18:22:11 EDT
A critical step in your argument is in the transition from page 3 to page 4. Here you argue that the dated labour values interpretation assumes a growing economy. This seems to me to be too strong. One can interpret the reduction to dated labour in a way that is consistent with simple reproduction. An alternative interpretation of the terms in your expansion (6) is simply that the amounts Of labour that have to be expended to produce the current output are less in each successive previous time period. This does not mean that the economy actually used less labour in the previous periods, just that as we go back through the previous years a smaller and smaller portion of those years labour was necessary to ensure this years production. What is presupposed is not exponential growth of production, but a comparision with what would have occurred if part of the depreciation fund had been consumed. The dated quantities of labour represent the part of the depreciation fund that would have had to have been consumed in previous periods to ensure that there was no net output in the current period. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Wright Sent: 14 July 2007 17:45 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value I've recently completed a first draft of a paper on the common root of Marx's TP and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value, which may be of interest to OPE-L members. You can download it as a PDF from here: http://188.8.131.52/%7Ewright/nonstandard.pdf I welcome any comments, either online or offline. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT