[ show plain text ]
Duncan, thank you for the clear analysis in Understanding Capital.
What grounds are you providing us for fixing the value of labor power as
the money wage multiplied by the value of money (while also holding value
added invariant) instead of taking the real wage as invariant in the
transformation?
Are you arguing that the NI only shows that the LTV is "logically
possible"--that is, you don't mean here to provide the reason for your
choice of the conditions which preserve it--so the actual decision to take
the first track must then be justified by the explanatory power the LTV
offers of real world capitalist dynamics, in particular the aggregate
relations of capitalist production?
That is, are you arguing that since the LTV offers great explanatory power,
we should decide to choose the invariance conditions that preserves it (or
some version theroef) from logical collapse?
Have I read you correctly?
My second question regards whether it is truly an error when input unit prices
do not equal output unit prices. I don't understand what grounds there are
for insisting that this condition must be met. If the LTV cannot abide by
such a condition, why not drop the condition? Why is the assumption made in
the first place? From Grossmann to Giusanni this criticism of Marx's method
has not been accepted by all his defenders.
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT