From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Sep 14 2007 - 04:31:34 EDT
Fred surely this is just an artefact of the fact that Sraffa uses difference equations rather than the full formalism of differential calculus. For his theoretical concerns -- primarily the critique of neoclassical theory difference equations were quite adequate. If one wants to go further, reformulating it all in differential terms is not difficult, in which case turnover time vanishes as a distinct concept, instead you have stocks of means of production, flows of replacement of these stocks. The theoretically tricky bit would be the valuation of the stocks which would have to be expressed as an integral function. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Moseley Sent: 12 September 2007 02:24 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] equilibrium and simultaneous vs. sequential determination Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>: > _____________________________ > I really don't understand the nature of your problem. > As Ricardo clearly tells you what is a circulating > capital for one could be treated a relatively fixed > capital for other. The distinction between fixed and > circulating capital is a matter of convention. > Ultimately all these differences boil down to > differing time-structure of capital--and this is the > source of all the problem. Differences in organic > composition of capital of Marx must show up as > differences in time-structure of capital of Ricardo. Ajit, this is not my problem. This is a problem in Sraffian theory. The problem, as I have explained in an earlier post, is that Sraffian theory (in which all capital is treated as circulating capital, because fixed capital is treated as a "joint product"), all industries must be assumed to have the same turnover period, if the rate of profit that is determined by the system of equations is to be equalized over the same period of time. If, on the other hand, turnover periods were not equal across industries, then the rate of profit determined by the equations would be equalized for different turnover periods, which would mean that the annual rate of profit for different industries would not be equal, contrary to the prevailing tendency. For example, if a given capital in one turnover period has a rate of profit of 5%, and it turns over twice a year, then it will have an annual rate of profit of 10%. If another capital in another industry also has a rate of profit of 5%, but turns over 10 times in a year, then its annual rate of profit would be 50%. I hope this clarifies the problem. Any suggested solutions? Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT