I haven't looked at the Cambridge debate for about 20 years, but it seems to me that one of the issues raised therein was the question of production functions and the units to be placed on capital. In other words, what does a production function containing $X of machinery mean? Or am I confusing this issue with something else? Sid Shniad > Just to add to Marianne Hills comments on quantifying, er accounting, er > quantifying capital: > > Aside from the fluctuation in monetary evaluation, whether money or price are > used the same problem exists: when quantifying different forms of produced > capital goods there tends to be repetition in the quantification process that > makes that process inaccurate. In adding up each piece, the costs of other > produced goods are entered which reflect earlier profits. Further, money and > price do not necessarily reflect an accurate accounting of the value of any > good -- for instance, the labor of women in producing a good is almost always > remunerated at a lesser rate than the labor of men producing the same good. > Does money and price, part of the quantifying of capital, actually reflect > the value of each persons' labor power? To say so is to say that women's > labor has less value. I am quite sure bill does not agree with this. > > maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
