Schema table

Specification (incremental, new schema) (2) Incremental or new schema (table redefinition) (2) Incremental (2) Incremental (2) Incremental (2) Incremental (2) Incremental... 

A database can be thought of as a collection of schemas. It is possible to have many databases managed by one RDBMS, but each database is independent of any other. SQL was not designed to facilitate access to data in different databases. Recently, methods such as dbSwitch1 or dblink2 have made it possible to link together different databases. However, these are not considered here because they do not conform to the SQL standard and are implemented is various ways in different RDBMS. In the examples in this book, all schemas, table, functions, etc., are contained within one database. 

Figure 5.1 shows a sample Web page from phpPgAdmin. The left frame is interactive, allowing the user to view and select various database, schemas, tables, functions, etc. The right frame typically shows table data, results of SQL commands, or interactive Web forms allowing operations on the database. 

The characteristic of a relational database model is the organization of data in different tables that have relationships with each other. A table is a two-dimensional consti uction of rows and columns. All the entries in one column have an equivalent meaning (c.g., name, molecular weight, etc. and represent a particular attribute of the objects (records) of the table (file) (Figure 5-9). The sequence of rows and columns in the tabic is irrelevant. Different tables (e.g., different objects with different attributes) in the same database can be related through at least one common attribute. Thus, it is possible to relate objects within tables indirectly by using a key. The range of values of an attribute is called the domain, which is defined by constraints. Schemas define and store the metadata of the database and the tables. 

A schema employs a don t care symbol so, for example, the sixth generation of offsprings in Table 10.6 could have employed the template... 

All modern relational databases include the ability to export tables as XML files. It is usually possible to apply an XSLT transformation to the data as part of the export procedure. In the interest of simplicity and compatibility across different databases, no special transformation was applied to the tables extracted from the New Brunswick till database. Therefore, after exporting data out of MS Access in a generic XML format, the first XSLT transformation involves restructuring the data to conform to a Geochemical Survey XML schema, developed at the GSC (Adcock 2009b). The second transformation produces a set of files which conform to the GML schema (OGC, 2007). KML shares many features with GML, and hence the third and final GML-to-KML transformation is very simple. 

The most developed expanded reproduction schema is referred to by Marx as schema (B) of the First Example in section 3 of chapter 21, Capital, volume 2 (ibid. 586-9). This is shown in Table 2.2, the numbers representing a modification of the simple reproduction table. The same assumptions are maintained as under simple reproduction, apart from relaxation of the restriction that all surplus value be allocated to capitalist consumption. 

Lianos (1979) provides an accessible insight into how the multiplier can be located in the reproduction schema. By focusing specifically upon Department 1 he states, it is convenient to assume a one sector economy (ibid. 407). Only information from Department 1 of the example used by Marx (Table 2.2) is included in the Lianos reproduction schema, as shown in Table 2.3. The key modification which enables a translation to Keynesian economic categories is to interpret all value added, variable capital plus surplus value, as net income (T,) for Department 1. Assuming away for the moment the problems associated with Adam Smith s dogma, this income is net of constant capital. The net income of the one-good economy is 2,000, consisting of 1,000 units of variable capital and 1,000 units of surplus value. 

Table 3.1 The allocation of surplus value in the two-sector schema...

Table 3.2 Ex ante three- sector reproduction schema ...

Table 3.4 Kalecki s interpretation of the three-sector schema ...

Without losing too much information, Table 3.5 can be translated into the more familiar two-sector schema used by Marx. All that is required is an... 

Although it has been shown that Nell s (2004) model of the circulation of money bears some resemblance to Marx s system, two key issues remain to be resolved. First, in adopting the Kalecki schema of intersectoral flows (Table 4.1), Nell narrowly associates accumulation with the production of means of production (capital goods). There is no mention of the accumulation of consumption goods, which are placed at the centre of Marx s reproduction schema. Second, the role of Marx s category of surplus value is obscured in the Kalecki table. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, for the... 

The role of inventories in the reproduction schema can be illustrated using Marx s numerical example (Table 4.3a). The elements of this schema can be recast in a tableau representing three periods of production, as shown in Table 4.4. Outputs of the production process are represented for this year and last year. First, the outputs of last year are shown as inputs of production in the current period. For example, the 4,000 units of constant capital used up by Department 1 this year were produced by Department 1 in the previous year. Similarly, the 1,000 units of variable capital (consumption goods) used up by Department 1 this year were produced by Department 2 in the previous year. 

These coefficients are derived from Table 4.3a, the input-output formulation of Marx s reproduction schema. 

Table 4.6 shows three of the money circuits that can be identified in Marx s schema. The first circuit (Ft) is the initial impact of capitalist outlays, as introduced in Table 4.5. For example, capitalists in Department 1 outlay 1,000 units of money, 400 of which are directed to the purchase of capital goods from itself and 600 from the purchase of consumption goods (for worker and capitalist consumption) from Department 2. In addition to the 400 units that Department 1 sells to itself, another 100 emits of capital goods are sold to Department 2. The total receipts from these sales are only 500 in the first circuit, precisely 500 short of the amount it lays out. However, Department 2 gets receipts of 1,250, which is more than its total outlay of 750. Overall, the 1,750 cast into circulation returns back to the capitalist class.

Table 5.1 shows the two-department expanded reproduction schema over five years.2 The familiar assumption of a constant rate of surplus value of 100 per cent is maintained, together with a 4 1 ratio of constant to variable capital in Department 1 and a 2 1 ratio in Department 2. Constant capital inputs are non-durable, used up dining a single period of production, and 1 of output is assumed equal to a unit of labour. 

To bring these results alive, they can be nested in the Marx s numerical examples. Table 5.2 shows the expanded reproduction schema of Table 5.1 in a form that enables some of the parameters to be seen more clearly. First, the ratio of investment to profits can be calculated, for example in year 4,... 

Table 5.2 Rates of growth in Marx s reproduction schema...

The most basic proportions embedded in the reproduction schema are established under simple reproduction. This was touched on in our introduction to the schema in Chapter 2, and in establishing the mutual exchange which takes place between departments of production in the circulation of money (Chapter 4). These proportions can be formally derived, in Table 6.1, by displaying the elements of Marx s numerical example (Table 2.1) alongside the Marxian algebraic symbols.3... 

It can now be shown how this result can be derived using an input-output interpretation of the simple reproduction schema. Following the same procedure first introduced in Chapter 2, Table 6.2(a) re-expresses the numerical elements of Table 6.1 as an input-output table. 

This introduction to simple reproduction, from an input-output perspective, paves the way for a consideration of the more relevant and complex case of expanded reproduction. Table 6.3(a) is the numerical input-output representation of the expanded reproduction schema (see Table 2.4). In algebraic terms, the expansion of constant capital is represented by dC and new variable capital by dV. Table 6.3(b) shows the set of input-output accounts using Marxian notation, with the new role for capital accumulation represented alongside the terms previously modelled under simple reproduction. 

Starting with Marx s case of simple reproduction, Luxemburg considers two of the key ways in which Marx models the circuit of money in Capital, volume 2. As argued by Bellofiore (2004 289), Luxemburg s theory is always framed in terms of some kind of a model of the money circuit . Again scholars of Marx should not fail to be impressed by the way in which Luxemburg sets out the role of money in the reproductions schema. The circulation of money is examined in the context of Marx s numerical example of simple reproduction (Table 6.1). 

The Kalecki modified schema retains the key characteristics of the Grossmann model. Constant capital still grows at 10 per cent each year compared to 5 per cent for variable capital, and this requires a steady increase in the proportion of profits saved, from 25 per cent in year 1 to 65.4 per cent in year 35. Also in keeping with the Grossmann model, the rate of profit steadily falls over time, from 33.3 per cent in year 1 to 14.6 per cent in year 35. The difference, however, is that capitalist consumption is not treated as a residual, dependent upon the amount of profits that happen to remain after the prior commitments of capital accumulation. In Table 7.2, capitalist consumption is modelled as an active component in the model, providing an important driver in the generation of profits, as capitalists cast money into circulation. 

---