[ show plain text ]
In reply to Jerry's OPE-L 2016.
He wrote:
"If I understand you correctly now, you are claiming that part of
your recent paper included inter alia an answer to Section 2.3
("Marx and the Value Conservation Principle"). Is that correct?"
No, not really. It is rather an answer to everyone who says
that, in Marx's theory, the value transferred from used-up means
of production to products depends on the post-production
replacement cost of those inputs. In other words, it is an answer
to simultaneist interpretations generally.
Dumenil and Levy actually don't discuss different interpretations
of Marx's theory of the determination of the value transferred.
Section 2.3 instead deals with whether the value of capital can
be altered in the aggregate due to devaluation, which is a
different issue. According to the TSS interpretation of Marx's
value theory, the value transferred to the product is the
pre-production cost of the means of production. By itself, this
does not imply that devaluation fails to alter aggregate value.
My previous post gave a misleading account of how Dumenil/Levy use
the term "conservation." Rereading the paper, I see that they use
it to cover both issues because, they suggest (section 1.1.),
sequential determination of value transfer is a "consequence" of
the preservation of aggregate value. In the sense in which they
use the term consequence -- if aggregate value is conserved, the
sum of value transferred cannot be determined simultaneously with
the prices or values of outputs -- this is true. Yet preservation
of aggregate value is not a consequence of the sequential
determination of the sum of value transferred. Aggegate value may
not be preserved even though the sum of value transferred is
determined sequentially.
I know that Alan Freeman has responded to the Dumenil/Levy paper,
but the response hasn't been published and I haven't seen it.
A2K
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:05 EST