[ show plain text ]
I agree with John in every aspect except just one.
Even if we ignore moral depreciation and imputing to Marx the idea that all depreciation is physical, we must and can defend the criticisms of Marx's transformation procedure, I think..
It is vital to derive relative prices given only the physical quantities used in production in our defence.
The existence of non-basic goods invalidates the derivation of prprs from the physical data. Money is a typical non-basic good. The issuance of new money transfers commodities from the world of commodity production to the outside of it. The issance of money requires such material inputs (in terms of the non-basic good production), while its products (the money) is not consumed in the commodity production. The transformation procedure cannot be rid of money by any means.
Fixed capitals also invalidates it even if the moral depreciation is ignored. I cannot accept Sraffa's method of dealing the fixed capitals as valid. The competition creates the law of the jungle, the weaker must fall a prey to the stronger. If equal rates of profit must apply to every captal, there cannot be such law of the jungle. Equivalent profit rates, therefore, can only apply to between different sectors of production. Within a given production sector, however, there different captals must command different rates of profit.
Yours
Chai-on
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT