Thanks, Paul. peace, plm At 10:23 AM 10/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >My view is that Samuelsons paper is formally correct but that >in its proposed field of application it makes a couple of illicit >ideological equations. > >I enclose a paper of which about 1 third is devoted to discussing samuelsons >article. > >Paul Cockshott >paul@cockshott.com >----- Original Message ----- >From: Patrick L. Mason <pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> >To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> >Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:18 PM >Subject: [OPE-L:3951] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem > > > > > > Paul: > > > > You stopped your note just when it was getting interesting. What's the > > implication of Samuelson's paper and is/was he correct? > > > > peace, patrick l mason > > > > At 03:29 PM 10/4/00 +0100, you wrote: > > >Note that the definition of value in vol 1 is done in abstraction from > > >changes in technology over time. In vol 1 a change in technology > > >changes values, but there is not systematic treatment of > > >the effect of a continuous rate of change of technology on > > >the definition of commodity values. > > > > > >It strikes me as illegitimate to try and reconcile prices of production > > >computed on a temporal basis with value defined on a non temporal > > >basis. > > > > > >Once you deal with continuous rates of change of labour productivity > > >then you are stepping outside the theoretical space on which the original > > >theory of value was based. Samuelson attempted do deal with this > > >problem of continuous change in labour productivity and its implication > > >for labour values in his paper 'A new labour theory of value for rational > > >planning through the use of the bourgeois profit rate' > > > > > >Paul Cockshott > > >paul@cockshott.com > > > > Rakesh wrote > > > > This is not true. As I noted to Allin who did not reply, Marx is > > > > already investigating in ch 9 why the prices of production in a > > > > particular sphere are undergoing changes of magnitude (see capital 3, > > > > p. 265ff. Vintage; see also p. 270-1 where marx refers to the rise of >fall > > > > of the portion of cost price which represents constant capital in a >given > > > > sphere of production; note also p.271-2 where Marx analyzes the impact >of > > > > rising productivity). So there is no reason for the stricture that the >so > > > > called transformation problem has to be solved on the assumption of >input > > > > prices of production=output prices of production. Of course if this > > > > assumption is dropped as it should be for a temporal > > > > sequential approach (and why can't an exercise in logic include time > > > > subscripts), then there no longer need be a discrepancy between total > > > > surplus value and total profit that has to be arbitrarily accounted > > > > for by postulating revenue expenditures of exactly the right size. Of > > > > course one can say that within a static framework such revenue > > > > expenditure could account for the inequality between total surplus > > > > value and total profit; that is, this can be offered as an escape > > > > hatch if one confines herself for the sake of argument to a static > > > > (or more accurately replicating) world in which input prices have to > > > > be output prices. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST