[ show plain text ]
"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/04/00:
>1. ... (M-C-M') IS Marx's analytical framework. It is the way that Marx
>posed and analyzed the main questions in his theory.
Fred, if this is correct, why is there NO reflection of the over-riding
importance of a M-C-M' analytical framework in "Value, Price and Profit"?
I don't even see M-C-M' there.
>2. ... But capital is defined in terms of money, not in terms of
>labor-values, unrelated to money quantities. The title of Part 2 is "The
>Transformation MONEY into capital" (a phrase that Marx uses repeatedly);
>it is not "the transformation of labor-values into capital."
If capital is defined in terms ot money how is "money" be transformed into
itself?
>3. Surplus value is also defined in Chapter 4 in terms of MONEY, as the
>increment of money, dM, that emerges at the end of the circulation of
>capital (pp. 251-52).
If surplus value is defined in terms of money, what isn't it called
surplus money?
>4. ... In the end, 27 shillings is converted into 30 shillings,
>with dM = 3 shillings. This increment of money is what the theory is
>intended to explain.
Marx assumed simple value/price equivalence in Vol. 1.
>5. ... But the point here, to begin with, is that Marx's theory
>in Volume 1 is NOT about the determination OF labor-values, unrelated to
>money magnitudes. Rather, the theory is about the determination of money
>magnitudes, and especially dM, BY labor-values.
Huh?
I must be missing something. Paul Z.
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT