Re Andrew K # 4034. Andrew: Many thanks for your clarifications regarding "exogeously" and "endogenously". I have another question somewhat related to these problems (to Andrew and, of course, to the list): As you know, there are passages in which Marx's explains that the existing stocks of commodities are revaluated according to labor time socially necessary to reproduce them. For example, at the end of period t, remaining stocks of vintage t-1 cotton are revaluated according to the labor time which was necessary to reproduce this commodity during the producion process of period t. Now, it's rather common that those passages are presented as textual evidence that the determination of commodity value is correctly represented by a system of simultaneous equations, instead of difference equations. When this is done, it's paid no attention to the fact that Marx is considering *previously existing stocks of commodities* which are revaluated. The texts are rather interpreted as saying that the actual expenditure of social human labor time carried out in the production of *inputs* is irrelevant for the determination of commodity value; in other words, that the distinction between past and living labor has no real meaning because there would be a retroactive revaluation of *constant capital*, which of course is not the same that the revaluation of existing stocks of commodities. Constant capital is a magnitude of value that was transferred during the production process by the consumption of the inputs which therefore are no longer "existing stocks" as those considered by Marx. Well, my question is: Do you know who was the first author who presented this argument by means those passages? My early references are Morishima (1973) who quotes Okishio (in Japanese), and Brody (1974). I haven't been able to find this interpretation in authors such Meek or Sweezy. Alejandro R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST