On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > I am quite happy that you have responded to me. Let's leave > TSS and everyone else out of this but Marx, you and me. And > I shall be quite simple and as brief as I can. > > Please go to the tableaux Capital 3, p.256. Can we take a tableau which represents a complete system, so we can figure the interdependencies? I use a simple 3-department one below. I'll set out the example then try to say something about your take on the matter. The starting numbers here are the ones Sweezy uses to illustrate Bortkiewicz's transformation (Theory of Capitalist Development, p. 121). The rate of surplus value is presumed to be 2/3 for all Departments. The initial value table: c v s value I 225.00 90.00 60.00 375.00 II 100.00 120.00 80.00 300.00 III 50.00 90.00 60.00 200.00 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 Marx's first-step transformation takes the given total s and distributes it in proportion to (c+v). Thus: c v profit price pvratio I 225.00 90.00 93.33 408.33 1.0889 II 100.00 120.00 65.19 285.19 0.9506 III 50.00 90.00 41.48 181.48 0.9074 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 1.0000 where "pvratio" is the ratio of price of production to value. At this point total profit = total surplus value and total price = total value. We now continue the iteration... (1) Take the price-to-value ratio for each Department, and use it to revalue the inputs. E.g. the pvratio for Dept I above is 1.0889, and doing 1.0889 * 225.00 gives 245.00 for the price of production of constant capital used in Dept I. Similarly for all the c and v numbers. (2) Calculate output price for each Dept as revalued c plus revalued v plus an aliquot share of total profit, which is presumed to be the same as total surplus value, that is, 200. round: 1 c v profit price pvratio I 245.00 85.56 95.33 425.88 1.1357 II 108.89 114.07 64.30 287.26 0.9575 III 54.44 85.56 40.37 180.37 0.9019 Tot. 408.33 285.19 200.00 893.52 1.0212 (Note that the aggregate pvratio is no longer 1.0.) round: 2 c v profit price pvratio I 255.53 86.18 95.83 437.54 1.1668 II 113.57 114.90 64.07 292.55 0.9752 III 56.78 86.18 40.09 183.06 0.9153 Tot. 425.88 287.26 200.00 913.14 1.0436 round: 3 c v profit price pvratio I 262.52 87.76 95.96 446.25 1.1900 II 116.68 117.02 64.02 297.72 0.9924 III 58.34 87.76 40.02 186.13 0.9306 Tot. 437.54 292.55 200.00 930.09 1.0630 ... round: 46 c v profit price pvratio I 288.00 96.00 96.00 480.00 1.2800 II 128.00 128.00 64.00 320.00 1.0667 III 64.00 96.00 40.00 200.00 1.0000 Tot. 480.00 320.00 200.00 1000.00 1.1429 At this point the numbers are the same as those obtained via the Bortkiewicz simultaneous equations approach. Total surplus value equals total profit, but total price does not equal total value. > If value had been redistributed in the previous period to > equalize profit rates, the total value of those means of > prod and wage goods simply could not have changed as a > result thereof... Agreed, and this is consistent with the example above. Total value of means of prod and wage goods = 675 throughout. However, this does not constrain the total cost-price of those items, evaluated at prices of production, to equal 675. > ... if total value and total prices of production and total > surplus value and total profit are equal in the second > tableau, there is no way that they could become unequal from > the transforming of the inputs. In the example above, total price diverges from total value at round 1, due to the revaluation of the given quantities of the inputs at the prices of production derived in Marx's first-step (round 0) transformation. > We still have the same total value and total cost price and > total profit and total surplus value from the second > tableau; they are necessarily unaffected by transforming the > inputs. You'll have to show me an example of what you mean. How would it differ from what I've shown above? Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST