On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chai-on Lee wrote:
> Because the v and the s are just two partitions of a single
> entity produced by the direct labor, I think, the two parts
> should be valued in the same terms.
I agree that one shouldn't mix units of measurement. I don't
think I was doing so, though perhaps I wasn't as clear as I
could have been. In all the tables after I said "We continue
the iteration..." I conceive of *all* the c, v and s figures as
being expressed in prices of production. The v figure I
calculate "drifts" away from the original v in value terms
because I'm revaluing the wage-goods at prices of production.
The aggregate s figure stays fixed at 200, not because it is
expressed (inconsistently) in value terms, but because, in the
context of my discussion with Rakesh, I'm imposing Marx's
postulate that total profit remains equal to the original total
surplus value throughout. I'm imposing the constraint that,
however prices behave under the transformation, they must
produce the result that the total profit (expressed in prices of
production) does not deviate from 200.
An alternative would be to impose the constraint that the total
of prices does not deviate from the original total of values
(875 in the example). If this is followed out, total profit
can't remain equal to the original total surplus value.
The stabilized table using the latter approach is:
c v profit price pvratio
I 252.00 84.00 84.00 420.00 1.1200
II 112.00 112.00 56.00 280.00 0.9333
III 56.00 84.00 35.00 175.00 0.8750
Tot. 420.00 280.00 175.00 875.00 1.0000
where total profit = 175 < total surplus value.
Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST