It seems to me that Julio takes it for granted that economics can be
done without invoking a unit of account, (i.e.) in the classical sense
of money being just a veil. His entire argument doesn't hold if the
mapping of "?" between the two states of y occurs in terms of a unit of
account and not in terms of physicalities. For now the principles
involved concern not mathematical but bookkeeping ones; during which
time the physicality of the product could be said to have entered a
state of suspended animation and "dead" to the world that matters. None
of this of course follows from the opening line of Marx's Grundrisse,
rendering strictly a supply-side argument.
John V
On 08/08/2013 8:37 AM, nathan tankus wrote:
I think you're "criticism" of the English side of the Cambridge
Capital Debates is silly. They weren't complaining about aggregation
in the abstract, they were complaining about the unit of account in
which aggregation was being done and the invalid conclusions based on
that questionable unit of account.
--
-Nathan Tankus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!DSPAM:3411,5203bb7392531029110467!
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
!DSPAM:3411,5203bb7392531029110467!
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
