[ show plain text ]
A reply to Fred's OPE-L 2176.
Fred wrote:
"I now think that we might agree completely! ... I finally realize what
is bugging you so much; but I am not saying what you think I am. ...
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."
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think we agree. I know you
don't think the sales price is determined retroactively. The only reason
I mentioned that was to show that the value transferred from used-up
means of production is a *parallel* case. The point is that "The change
in the value of cotton at midnight affects, can affect, only what happens
THEREAFTER. It does not, cannot, affect what has happened PREVIOUSLY."
That's true whether we are talking about the sales price of the output or
the sum of value that was transferred from the input. "... the change in
the value of cotton at midnight on Wednesday cannot affect the value of
cotton sold on Tuesday (or before). It cannot affect the value of cotton
employed in production on Tuesday (or before). It cannot affect the
value transferred from cotton that entered production on Tuesday (or
before)." [OPE-L 2091]
But maybe we do agree. There's an easy and surefire way to find out:
tell me whether you agree with MARX'S computations in his critique of
Ramsay (see my OPE-L 1380, also 2091). Marx computes the value
transferred temporally, not at replacement cost. The value transferred
from the seed corn is 2 pounds/qr, while the value of that year's corn
output is 1 pound/qr. If you agree with Marx, you agree with me. If
you disagree with Marx, you disagree with me. It is that simple.
Ciao,
Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT