Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Jul 19 2007 - 02:32:20 EDT

I'm in India right now and have not followed this
conversation at all. But I think it is simply a wrong
interpretation to interpret Sraffa's dated labor
approach to price determination in a growth context.
Marx (and Ricardo as well) measures labor-values in a
similar manner with 0 power on the rate of profits
throughout. In any case, dated labor approach is
applicable only in a context when a sector produces
only one commodity. In the case of multiple production
(joint-production) the approach is not workable. But
in joint production cases first of all it is very
difficult to define labor-value of commodities and
even if you can do this, you cannot avoid negative
labor-value for some commodities. Cheers, ajit sinha
--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote:

> > 1. That no growth is implied in dated labour
> values, what is implied is a diminishing fraction of
> the total labour of past time intervals being
> necessary for the current output.
> Under my interpretation there is a process of
> growth. But if your
> proposed "finite" interpretation make sense of the
> mathematics then
> feel free to translate my argument into terms you
> are more familiar
> with. The standard and nonstandard formulae will
> denote different
> economic processes under your interpretation too.
> But as already stated the argument is independent of
> the chosen
> interpretation. It is purely a matter of
> presentation.
> > 2. This diminishing fraction terminates within a
> finite time horizon because all units of means of
> production are integers not real numbers. 0.3 of a
> hydraulic press is not a means of production. Note
> that Kantorovich certainly realised this and was
> careful to present all his quantities as integers.
> So yes, this integral analysis of linear production
> processes has been in the literature since 1938.
> Any integer can be represented as a convergent
> infinite series. It is
> eccentric to reject infinite series representations
> on such grounds.
> > The example you give from electrostatics is
> classical electro mechanics which is cast in
> Newtonian form with continuously differentiable
> fields. This has been rejected by physicists as only
> an approximation since Einsteins 1905 paper on the
> photo electric effect. All physical quantities are
> quantised - thus integer rather than real.
> You are mixing up so many issues here it is
> difficult to know where to begin.

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT