[ show plain text ]
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Ajit,
>
> If we *define* total commodity value as the labor time represented by the
> means of production used up in production+ direct labor time needed to
> produce the entire commodity output, then as a matter of definition
> commodity *value* cannot change as result of changes in the *prices* of the
> inputs. In Marx's system even after we modify the cost prices--a price
> adjustment--we still have the same quantity of means of production consumed
> and the same number of worker hours. Therefore modification of cost price
> can bring no change to the total value of the product. Labor time is not
> changed thereby. Now I shall sidestep the difficulty of the those tricky
> "socially necessary labor time" units in which labor time is measured. But
> those are the units as they were for Ricardo. So that total value does not change
> as a result of the modification of cost price is not a normalisation condition;
> nor is it an arbitrary postulate. It follows from the way in which value is
> defined.
___________________
Yes! but you are confusing apple with oranges. The system that you are following is
in money terms, and not labor-time units. When you are adding the profits on top of
your "cost prices" you will get a figure in money terms because both your "cost
price" and profits are in money terms. Thus when you add your right hand side of the
equations you get an aggregate figure in money terms. Thus when you iterate your
"cost prices" and claim that your right hand side aggregate figure must remain
constant, then that is a illegitemate claim. The argument that the total amount of
labor-time must remain same in the system has no relevance in your case. Try to be
clear about the unit of measures in these arguments. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT