Dear Andrew, If workers lived on air there would be no exploitation, and so no capitalism, with rather messes up the general discussion doesn't it? Paul Bullock -----Original Message----- From: Drewk <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 11 February 2001 15:49 Subject: [OPE-L:4871] Give us some NUMBERS, Fred! (was: rent and the working class) >Fred Moseley writes in OPE-L 4865: > >"Kliman and McGlone's interpretation [i.e., the temporal >single-system interpretation] of Marx's "prices of production" is >erroneous. According to their interpretation, >"prices of production" continue to change from period to period, >EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR >ANYWHERE IN THE ECONOMY! (See for example, the 14 periods in >Andrew and Ted's numerical example in their first (1988) >article)." > >Fred, just how do you think you know the changes in prices aren't >the result of productivity changes? What is it that creates the >difference between input and output prices in the *initial* >period? > >It might well be a difference in productivity in period 1 as >against period 0, and all the changes in periods 2, 3, etc. are >part of the adjustment of prices in response to that productivity >change. > >Marx never said that productivity changes can't have an *ongoing* >influence on prices of production, did he? > > > > >BTW, as Eduardo has pointed out to me, it is just NOT true that >Marx's theory is that prices of production cannot change >independently of changes in productivity. > >They change also, Marx says, due to changes in the general profit >rate. H > >e also tells us that the general profit rate changes in response >to changes in *market prices* -- whatever their cause. > >Marx is exceedingly clear about the latter point. See Ch. 6 of >_Capital_, Vol. III. > >Hence, changes in market prices influence prices of production. >Q.E.D. > > > > >Also, I think it is really time for you to put up or shut up. > >When you presented your argument, I pointed out immediately that >it is YOU as a physicalist/simultaneist who must conclude that the >productivity of labor can change without prices of production >changing, contrary to your claim that "prices of production change >if AND ONLY IF there is a change in the productivity of labor >somewhere in the economy." > >You tried to evade my response in your usual manner, by claiming >that your "method" isn't the Sraffian "method." > >But I couldn't care less about your method. > >I care about your NUMBERS and their implications. > >You keep trying to run away from having to produce any numbers. > >Why might that be? > > >Well, you can run but you sure can't hide. > >Here's an example in which productivity rises, for which I'd like >you to produce changes in the price of production: > >There is a two-sector economy, in which workers live on air. > >In sector 1, 4 bu. of seed corn and 2 units of living labor yield >5 bu. of corn output. > >In sector 2, 4 bu. of corn and 2 units of living labor yield 5 bu. >of gold (the money commodity). > > >In the next period, labor productivity rises; in each sector, 1 >unit of living labor (instead of 2) is required to produce a unit >of output. > > > >Really, it is time you produced some NUMBERS instead of just a >string of unsupported assertions. > >Andrew Kliman > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST