re 4099 > >3) Reading the whole of Part Two of Volume III together, I found >strong reasons to think of Marx as a "long-periodist", that is, as >adopting the methodology of long-period positions in his reasoning. >He explicitly links his discussion to Smith's theory of competition, >and the adopts characteristic long-period language, such as the >distinction between natural and market price. Duncan, I just don't see this, and would like to reply with textual evidence later. But Marx clearly thought that while there was continuous or short term change in prices of production, the general rate of profit itself only changed over a long period; hence the short term interperiodic change in prices of production should be attributed to changes in the values of the commodities themselves. Marx is thus not IN ANY WAY a long periodist, for he is agreeing with the classical economists only in that insofar as prices of production change due to changes in the average rate of profit, such changes only happen over the long run. But prices of production can and do change for other reasons over the short term. "For all the great changes that constantly occur in the actual rates of profit in particular spheres of production (as we shall later show), a genuine change in the general rate of profit, one not simply brought about by exceptional economic events, is the final outcome of a whole series of protracted oscillations, which require a good deal of time beofre they are consolidated and balanced out to produce a change in the general rate. IN ALL PERIODS SHORTER THAN THIS, THEREFORE, AND EVEN THEN LEAVING ASIDE FLUCTUATIONS IN MARKET PRICES, A CHANGE IN PRICES OF PRODUCTION IS ALWAYS TO BE EXPLAINED prima facie BY AN ACTUAL CHANGE IN COMMODITY VALUES, I.E., BY A CHANGE IN THE TOTAL SUM OF LABOUR-TIME NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE COMMODITIES. WE ARE NOT REFERRING HERE TO A MERE CHANGE IN THE MONETARY EXPRESSION OF VALUES." Capital 3, p. 266 (Vintage). So Marx clearly recognizes changes in the prices of production over the short term, thereby invalidating any solution to his transformation that requires input prices must be the same as output prices. The critique of simultaneism is solidly grounded in Marx's writings and in reality though not in the timeless methodology of general equilibrium theory. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST