[ show plain text ]
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Now, Fred's proposal suggests that the value of the constant capital seed
> >corn should be measured by the money price of corn multiplied by the 'value of
> >money' as derived by the NI approach. Now, given the money price of corn, we
> >have determined the value of corn in this case without any reference to the
> >live labor-time or the S+V element of the value of corn.
>
> Ajit,
> In Marx's transformation table he assumes that the value of the inputs is
> the same as the production prices at which they were bought. This gives us
> part of the the money investment in terms of which the capitalist will
> claim profit.
> But in terms of the logic of the transformation this is misleading, for the
> value of the output will be based on the value of the constant capital
> transferred. So once we realize that the price paid for the constant
> capital is not its value, then we have to differentiate $MP from the value
> of the constant capital (C).
>
> It has been misunderstood for years that the correction for which Marx is
> calling is the transformation of the inputs from their money prices to
> their values (exact opposite to how Bortkiewicz and Sweezy have put it) so
> as to understand the logic of the transformation in each branch of
> production. But even as the below allows for the price of the means of
> production to differ the value of the constant capital--which seems to your
> main criticism here-- this does not affect the total value produced or the
> aggregate surplus value produced or the prices of production (pp); it just
> changes our picture of what is going on in each branch of production. But
> since Marx was concerned with the macro magnitudes, he simply does not
> bother with it.
>
> $MP C V SV costprice value pp
> 80 70 20 20 100 110 124
> 60 70 30 30 90 130 112
> 90 85 15 15 105 115 131
> 50 55 25 25 75 105 93
> _______________________________________
> 280 280 90 90 370 460 460
>
> Rate of profit is 24%.
>
> So in the first and third branches the price of production of the mp used
> is greater than their value. And visa versa in branches two and four. That
> is,
> c+v<cost price in branches one and three and visa versa in branches two and
> four.
>
> That is, the above table provides in the C column the correction for which
> Marx is here calling:
________________________
Rakesh, may be I'm too tired right now. But I have absolutely no idea what are you
talking about. I don't know where you get your table from? How did you calculate
your c and v and what are their units? Your table is incomprehensible to me, as
well as what you say about the TP. My basic point is that Fred's proposal ends up
saying that price of a commodity is whatever it happens to be, and that's my theory
of price. And as far as labor-values are concerned, just multiply all the prices
with a constant and viola! we have solved the problem of Marx's theory of value.
Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
> >"It was originally assumed that the cost price of a commodity equalled the
> >*value* of the commodities consumed in its production. But for the buyer
> >of a commodity, it is the price of production that constitutes its cost
> >price and can thus enter into forming the price of another commodity. As
> >the price of production of a commodity can diverge from its value, so the
> >cost price of a commodity, in which the price of production of other
> >commodities is involved, can also stand above or below the portion of its
> >total value that is formed by the value of the means of production going
> >into it."
> >[C.III: 264-65]
>
> Quoted by Gil.
>
> Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT