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: Sat Jul 21 2007 - 10:17:59 EDT

Ian, I have not seen your paper at all yet. I hope to
get to it one day--but not soon though. My best, ajit
--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote:

> > But I think it is simply a wrong
> > interpretation to interpret Sraffa's dated labor
> > approach to price determination in a growth
> context.
> If you find this particular interpretation of the
> formula for standard
> labour-values unfamiliar then concentrate on the two
> other
> interpretations I mention in the paper.
> The standard formula for labour-values is not
> Sraffa's equation by the
> way, it goes as far back at least to Dmitriev, whom
> he read, but
> didn't reference.
> To claim that this interpretation is "simply wrong"
> you should
> demonstrate that it cannot consistently translate
> the system of
> mathematical equations into economically meaningful
> statements. That
> would be a critique that might shift my position on
> the growth
> interpretation of the hypothetical process of
> replacement.
> > Marx (and Ricardo as well) measures labor-values
> in a
> > similar manner with 0 power on the rate of profits
> > throughout.
> If you mean that the standard formula for
> labour-values is an accurate
> translation of some aspects of Marx's and Ricardo's
> labour-value
> accounting then I agree.
> > 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.
> Joint production is irrelevant to this paper, which
> is a critique of
> the formula for standard labour-values in single
> production.
> However, I'm certain that the neo-Ricardian results
> regarding joint
> production and value theory are severely compromised
> due to the
> transfer of the labour-cost accounting error from
> single production
> into the joint production framework.
> The appendix contains an analysis of standard vs.
> nonstandard
> labour-values in the context of proportionate
> growth. I wrote this
> especially for you since you challenged me to
> analyze this case and
> claimed that my labour-cost accounting would "break
> down" in this
> context. But you were confusing the issue of a
> distributed vs.
> undistributed surplus with the concept of growth.

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.!

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