[OPE-L:5233] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one commodity models and illustrations

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

Re Duncan's [5230]:


> The important question is whether the model
> has enough detail to
> throw light on the problem it's aimed at. For
> example, it is very
> difficult to deal with the relation between c and v
> in empirical  studies of most modern economies
> because the data is not available at
> the flow level to measure c. But I don't think that > means Marxist
> economics should just give up on those
> economies.

Yes, but the question of empirical measurement
must be kept separate from the specification of
models that concern much more abstract theory.
I.e. the issue of empirical measurement is much
more concrete than that of analytical models that,
say, are one-sector models (and one can view a
one-commodity model as a special case of a one-
sector model).

> I agree with you that "specific to capitalism"
> requires a the concept
> of labor-power, but I don't see why you tack
> "multi-commodity
> production" onto the list, in the sense that the technology has to
> have a significant difference in compositions of capital across
> sectors. Some capitalist economies might have relatively little
> dispersion of compositions of capital, but they would still be
> capitalist.

Yeah, but they all have c + v. And they all
have multi-commodity production. And,
more to the point, if labor-power is a commodity
then there *must be* more than one commodity
in the model/illustration.

In solidarity, Jerry