In reply to Rakesh's comments: I think the Classical long-period concept of natural price does allow for the natural price to change gradually, probably most often as a result of changes in labor productivity (though that's not the only possible reason). It's also plausible to suppose that the average rate of profit evolves on an even broader time scale, since some of the fluctuations in natural prices across sectors will cancel out. I think the difficulty in interpreting Marx's transformation tableaux is to situate them in the Classical long-period theory of competition and the emergence of natural prices (or prices of production). If they were supposed to be a literal representation of the temporal evolution of market prices why wouldn't they fall victim to Marx's general argument that the laws of capitalist production only emerge as the average of ceaseless fluctuations? To put this in another way, why should the profit rate be exactly equalized across sectors in each period? Maybe I missed the post in which you included the "textual evidence" that convinced you that my general interpretation of Marx as a long-periodist was off the mark. Duncan >To repeat my first textually based criticism: while Marx argued that >changes in prices of production due to changes in the general rate >of profit would take a long period to manifest themselves in the >face of random and cyclical fluctuations in the profit rate in the >short term (see also Capital 3,p.269-70), Marx also recognized >prices of production are changing over shorter periods due to >changes in the values of the commodities themselves. Moreover, by >maintaining money as a theoretical reference point, this shorter >term or interperiodic change is rendered more obviously visible than >in a less rigorously conducted thought experiment. > >Also, even if total cost prices for any industry were to remain >stable either in relative or absolute terms over a longer period, >*unit* prices (as well as surplus value per unit) will still be >changing interperiodically as a result of rising labor productivity. >I haven't seen any textual evidence yet that Marx thought unit >prices would only change over the long term even as he was keeping >the value of money constant! > -- Duncan K. Foley Leo Model Professor Department of Economics Graduate Faculty New School University 65 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212)-229-5906 messages: (212)-229-5717 fax: (212)-229-5724 e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST