Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > > > >Rakesh, I think you have found the right vocation for yourself > >finally! Now, my > >advise would be to put all your energy into t-shirt business. All the best! > >Cheers, ajit sinha > > Glad you're back, Ajit. Truly. My joke was made at the end of the > argument. Your joke is your argument. > > Remember you said that the two equalities overdetermine the system. I > am saying that this is not true. We can have total value=total price > and mass of surplus value=sum of profits as long as surplus value is > defined,as Marx explicitly does, as total value minus cost price > (instead of value of inputs) which allows for the modification of the > latter to change the mass of surplus value. The two equalities do not > then overdetermine the system of transformation equations. I am the > first to argue that the problem of overdetermination disappears once > we use Marx's definition of surplus value. So I can understand why > you may not have got the point. > > To see this, I'll have to copy this again: > > _______________________ > 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 > _________________ > > I propose these input transformation equations in which total > value/price is invariant from the original tableau (equation 5) and > the sum of surplus value equals (determines) the sum of profits > (equation 4). > > (1) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x > (2) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y > (3) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+120y)+r(50x+90y) > (4) 875-(225x+100x+50x+90y+120y+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) > (5) 875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) ___________________________ Your first three equations will determine the relative prices of x, y, and the third commodity z, and the rate of profits r. Before I mention the problems with your equations (4) and (5), let me first suggest to you that your equations are pure numbers. You consistently fail to mention the units in which the variables are measured. As a matter of fact, the question of the unit of measure is the crux of the transformation problem. So if you don't have the problem of unit upper most in your mind, you cannot even begin to understand the nature of the problem, let alone solving it. Now, my sense is that you would say, the numbers are given in money terms. Now, your world of equations have three commodities. It appears that the first one is something like iron, second one is something like wheat, and the third one could be gold. So let us say, gold is the money commodity in your world, so the values/prices of x and y are given in terms of gold. In that case, your third equation turns out to be 50x + 90y + r(50x + 90y) = 200 (3'). Now, the system of equations (1), (2), and (3') are in well defined units, and they solve for x, y, and r. Given your unnecessary simple reproduction constraint on the system, it must follow that: r(225x+90y)+r(100x+120y)+r(50x+90y) = 200. But this is nothing but one of Bortkiewicz's solution in which the gold sector is taken as the luxury/money commodity sector with simple reproduction constraint on the system. Here by design, total surplus value will always be equal to total profits. And if the gold sector is made of average organic composition of capital, then total value will also be equal to total surplus value. This is just one of those special cases. All this should have already made it clear that your equations (4) and (5) must be at best redundant. But actually they are worse than that. Mathematically, your r has to be either known or unknown, they cannot be both at the same time. In equation (4), on the right hand side you have r as an unknown variable, whereas the left hand side 875 is derived by taking r = 8/27. So this is simply illegitimate. Same with equation (5). Whether you like it or not, you have presented a simultaneous equation system with three unknowns and five equations. If all your five equations are independent ones, then your system is overdetermined (try solving for x, y, and r from your five equations, which you haven't done yet). In a system with unique solution, the two equations should be derivable from the first three equations. On a general note: I would advise that a solution to the transformation problem does not lay in being cute by somehow showing that the two invariance conditions satisfy. One needs to first think about what is the nature of the problem, before trying to come up with a quantitative solutions. Cheers, ajit sinha ___________________ > > > Allin proposes that the transformation should keep the mass of > surplus value invariant even as cost prices are modified : > > (6) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x > (7) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y > (8) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=875-375-300 (200) > (9) 875-375-300 (200)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) > (10)875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) > > My set of equations has a determinate solution for x,y and r; this > much you will have to grant. > > Now tell me why my equation 4 is the incorrect expression for mass of > surplus value=sum of profits. I have responded to Allin's criticism. > > What's yours? It would be truly appreciated. > > All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST