[ show plain text ]
I had written:
> For those who want to start with labor hours in order to get
> a set of prices, differential rent becomes a problem as well
> since its very existence indicates that not all actual hours
> of labor create the same value even if we assume that all
> labor is simple labor.
That's not my understanding: I'd say that the existence of
differential rent drives prices away from values for the
affected commodities, not that it alters the values of the
commodities. The infra-marginal output ends up selling for a
price above its value.
My comments and questions:
1. Would you not then have capitals with relatively low compositions
(c/v ratio in price terms) grabbing surplus value from those with
2. If there is no absolute rent, then why not use the least productive
of the producers as the one that enters into the transformation
procedure which seems to be the standard way or proceeding?
3. How does your way of proceeding square with Marx's notion of
market value? Here the market value would be determined by the
least productive producer -- with or without absolute rent.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST