[ show plain text ]
Andrew, thanks very much for your most recent post. Astonishingly,
I now think that we might agree completely! I finally realize that I
think you misunderstand my interpretation on one crucial point, and this
misunderstanding leads to the apparent disagreement. I finally realize
what is bugging you so much; but I am not saying what you think I am.
Let's follow your example.
1. Production of yarn from cotton takes place on Tuesday.
2. Then there is a change in the value of cotton at midnight on Tuesday.
3. FROM NOW ON, the value transferred from the cotton to the yarn will
equal to the new (current) value of cotton. This determination of value
transferred applies to:
a. yarn produced after midnight on Tuesday
b. yarn produced on Tuesday, BUT NOT YET SOLD
c. yarn produced before Tuesday, BUT NOT YET SOLD.
This seems to Me what you are saying. Is this correct? If so, then I
agree with it completely; it is what I have been saying all along.
4. However, Andrew seems to think that I am also saying that
the SALES PRICE of yarn SOLD BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON TUESDAY will also change
(retroactively) to reflect the new (current) value of cotton.
But, Andrew, I AM NOT SAYING THIS. I am NOT saying that the actual sales
price of yarn sold before midnight on Tuesday will also change to reflect
the new (current) value of cotton. I agree with you; that would be
ludicrous. I am not talking about a "retroactive" change in the sales
price of goods sold before midnight on Tuesday.
The important point is this:
THE SALES PRICE BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON TUESDAY
(which remains unchanged)
NO LONGER DETERMINES THE VALUE TRANSFERRED
AFTER MIDNIGHT ON TUESDAY,
as we have agreed (point 3 above).
I am talking about VALUE TRANSFERRED IN THE PRESENT,
not about SALES PRICES IN THE PAST. As a result of the change in the
value of the cotton, the actual sales price of the cotton in the past
becomes IRRELEVANT to the determination of the value transferred in the
present. The value transferred in the present = price of means of
production in the present, NOT = sales price in the past.
In other words, I am NOT saying that input prices actually equal output
prices. I am saying that, if there is a change in the value of the
inputs, then input prices become IRRELEVANT, they no longer determine
value transferred in the present. Again, what I am saying is that:
VALUE TRANSFERRED TODAY = price of means of production today.
I am NOT saying:
INPUT PRICES IN THE PAST = price of means of production today.
So, in terms of value transferred after midnight on Tuesday, which is what
I am talking about, we are in complete agreement, right? (point 3 above).
How about that?!
Sraffians may assume that input prices in the past = output prices today.
But, please, I am not a Sraffian. Sraffians have no concept of value
transferred, but I do. And value transferred in the present is what I am
talking about, not sales prices in the past.
I look forward very much to your response and to further discussion (and
further agreement?).
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST