From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Apr 02 2007 - 09:14:44 EDT
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > Diego: > > Who was the following post addressed to? > > In solidarity, Jerry __________________ > Let's focus on the core of the problem. Many people > tend to think of values > as quantities of labour, and of prices of production > as quantities of money. > My first proposal is to look at the quantitative > dimension of this > relationship: we can define both of them as > quantities of labour as well as > quantities of money. The passing from one measure to > the other is done > through the melt (monetary expression of labour > time), which is simply the > quotient between the aggregate monetary value-added > and the sum of direct > labour. ________________________ Since my seminar is more or less under control, I can indulge in some recreational activities! Dear Diego, Since you claim that I don't understand a word of Marx, let me show you what your understanding of Marx amounts to. Let us say the total direct labor in a year is 500 hours and the net nominal GDP is $100. So the value of your MELT happens to be $1 = 5hrs of labor. Let us suppose that a commodity X is produced by 2 units of Y and 5 hours of labor. Let us also assume that price of Y happens to be $5 per unit of Y. Now according you your theory the labor value of X must be equal to $10xm + 5 hours of direct labor, which is equal to 55 hours of labor. Now if somebody asks you, what is the price of X, you would say no problem, it is 55/5 = $11! The question is: do you have any theory of price that will ensure that the price of X will be indeed $11? The answer is no. Now let me make it furthermore clear to you, what it means: Let us suppose that X requires not only Y but also X for its production. Let us suppose it takes 1/5 units of X, 2 units of Y and 5 hours of labor to produce 1 unit of X. Let us suppose that price of X happens to be say $10 per unit and price of y is $5. Now according to your theory, the labor value of X must be equal to (10x(1/5)x5 + 2x5x5 + 5) = 65 hours of labor. Now if somebody asks you what is the price of X, your formula would suggest that it must be 65/m = $13, which contradices the price of X you had assumed, which was $10. So going back and forth with your m can give you nothing but nonsense. Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT