On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gerald_A_Levy wrote: >From Rakesh: > > In a word, I am arguing that the formula for the determination of > > value cannot be cost price + surplus value. > > (1) k + s = V > > It is simply obvious that there are many cases in which the cost > > price could rise without any change in the value of a commodity. For > > example, wage goods could become more expensive due to rising ground > > rent payments; the cost price of commodities would thus rise but this > > does not ipso facto raise the value of the produced output (we must > > simply remember that Marx's theory of surplus value originates out of > > Ricardo's critique of Smith's adding up theory of price). > > If "wage goods become more expensive due to rising ground rent > payments", won't this cause, ceteris paribus, a "reduction of wages > below their value"? I agree with Rakesh's general point. The price of inputs to the production of any given commodity could rise (or fall) for a host of contingent reasons having nothing to do with changes in the conditions of production or the labour-time it takes to produce them (e.g. short-run supply/demand issues). Such changes will alter cost price. Therefore on Fred's reading they will also change the value of the output commodity. This seems theoretically unacceptable: _values_ would be affected by any and all factors that influence market prices. Then what's happened to the idea that values are determined by the socially necessary labour-time required for a commodity's production? Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST