IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
--- glevy@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > I think if we take a purely natural science point > of > > view then the notion of surplus must meltdown. One > way > > to look at the system would be to specify > subsistence > > wage per unit of labor service in terms of goods > and > > put it on the side of inputs. These inputs produce > the > > total labor service as output and thus account for > all > > the labor in the system. Now the net output of the > > system can be interpreted as conversion of > resources > > that are economically free such as air, water, > sun, > > etc. I think they could be modeled in the system > with > > zero prices. We can define wages as anything above > the > > given subsistence and work out the distrbution of > > "free natural resources" between wages and > profits. > > This way we could maintain the conservation > principle. > > What do you think? > > Hi Ajit: > > Which conservation principle in the natural sciences > are you > referring to and how does that relate to > conservation principles > which have been suggested for political economy? ___________________ I think there is only one conservation principle in natural science (I mean physics) and that is conservation of total energy. I do not know of any conservation principle in political economy. What are they? Now, don't tell me the normalisation equation used by some Marxists in the transformation problem as, total value = total prices of production is your conservation principle of political economy. That would be non-sense. __________________________ > > The most fundamental conservation principle in the > natural > sciences refers to the conservation of *matter*. In > that regard, > even if all life were destroyed on this planet (and > elsewhere), > matter would still be conserved. Ashes to ashes, > dust to dust .... ______________________ Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust is the conservation principle of christianity and not natural science! Matter can be converted to energy. Cheers, ajit sinha > > In solidarity, Jerry > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
- Re: [OPE-L] Che Guevara and the Sraffian notion of profit, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Che Guevara and the Sraffian notion of profit, Ian Wright Mon 07 May 2007, 20:13 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Che Guevara and the Sraffian notion of profit, Paul Cockshott Tue 08 May 2007, 08:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Che Guevara and the Sraffian notion of profit, ajit sinha Wed 09 May 2007, 12:52 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] conservation principles in economic and the natural sciences, glevy Wed 09 May 2007, 13:20 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] conservation principles in economic and the natural sciences, ajit sinha Wed 09 May 2007, 15:16 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] conservation principles in economic and the natural sciences, glevy Wed 09 May 2007, 16:30 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] conservation principles in economic and the natural sciences, Paul Cockshott Wed 09 May 2007, 21:16 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] conservation principles in economic and the natural sciences, ajit sinha Thu 10 May 2007, 10:02 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] axioms in political economy, glevy Thu 10 May 2007, 14:44 GMT