[OPE-L:3987] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem

From: Patrick L. Mason (pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 08:59:24 EDT


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