Fred B. Moseley wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote: > > > Gil Skillman wrote: > > > > > I'm writing in response to a much earlier post from Fred on this topic. > > > > > > Fred writes: > > > > > > > >..... Marx's labor theory of value, as I > > > >understand it, assumes that, in a given period of time in the real > > > >capitalist economy, each hour of average social labor produces a certain > > > >amount (say, m) of money new-value (or money value added). Even though we > > > >don't know what m is (i.e. we can't observe m), and even though we cannot > > > >explain what determines m, the theory assumes nonetheless there is an > > > >actual, unique m in the real capitalist economy. And it is this actual, > > > >unique m that is taken as given in the determination of the total > > > >new-value produced in this period. > > > > > > The measure m is real enough, but its existence does not in any way depend > > > on the assertion of a labor theory of value. > > > For example, in the NI understanding of m discussed below, m is equivalent > > > to what neoclassicists would immediately recognize as the average product > > > of labor--in this case, the average *net* product of "socially necessary" > > > labor. But since Marx defines "socially necessary" labor in terms of > > > averages in any case, the latter condition doesn't add any bite. > > > > > > >>As Duncan has argued in (3761) (and elsewhere), the unique value of m in a > > > >given period must be equal to NV / L, i.e. to the ratio of the money > > > >new-value produced in this period to the average social labor performed > > > >during this period. > > > > > > Rather, m is *defined* as NV/L. The labor theory of value itself doesn't > > > demand that this ratio be defined at all; we could instead follow Marx's > > > explicit lead in defining commodity values in terms of embodied labor time. > > > Then we could determine directly the average labor value of aggregate net > > > product, and not bring in prices at all. And the measure NV/L is only > > > "unique" if one can agree on how the net product vector mentioned by Fred > > > is valued--by labor values? current prices? inflation-adjusted prices, > > > relative to some base? Sraffian prices of production? Neoclassical > > > competitive prices? > > > > > > > This does not mean that m is determined by NV / L. > > > >It only means that m has this unique value. We don't know what > > > >determines m. > > > > > > Rather, m is "determined" by NV/L, but we don't know by this what > > > determines NV and L. > > > > > > >But whatever determines m, and whatever the value of m, if > > > >it is assumed that NV = m L, then m must be equal to NV / L, and cannot by > > > >assumption be equal to anything else. > > > > > > That's right: it's equal by assumption, i.e. a tautology. > > > > ____________________ > > > > Actually, in Fred's case it is not a tautology. It is a case of trying to > > determine two unknowns with one equation. In his case, both NV and m are > > unknowns, only L is known. > > Not true, Ajit. As I have argued in recent posts, Marx's theory assumes > that there is an actual m in the economy, with a definite > magnitude; i.e. that each hour of abstract labor produces a definite > quantity m of money new-value. It is this actual m, with a definite > magnitude, that is taken as given in Marx's theory of new-value and > surplus-value. m is not an unknown. m is taken as given. There is only > one unknown, NV, which is determined by the mL. > > Comradely, > Fred _____________________________ If something is "given", then you must know it. So could you tell us what is the value of m in the US these days? Since you have already admitted that you don't know what that "given" m happens to be, nor do you know what determines it, then in plain English you are claiming that your "m" is unknown. This is what people mean by unknown in mathematical formulations. An unknown does not mean it is unreal, i.e. that it does not exist. It only means that we do not know its value, which is what you have admitted repeatedly with respect to m. Thus your above equation has two unknowns. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EST