On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Allin Cottrell wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > > > Allin, I argue that the quantities of money-capital that are taken > > as given are long-run average prices. It is assumed that the > > economy is in long-run equilibrium (i.e. equal profit rates across > > industries) and that prices are long-run average prices, i.e. > > prices of production. Therefore, these quantities of > > money-capital that are taken as given are not affected by the > > deviations of market prices from prices of production. > > OK, thanks for the clarification. So short-run supply/demand > disequilibria won't affect values, on this reading. Changes in the > wage rate, though, will affect values (since in general such changes > alter relative prices of production). To me, that too seems contrary > to Marx's basic conception. > > Allin Cottrell. Allin, yes, you are right that, according to my interpretation of Marx's theory, a change of wages will change the prices of production of the means of production and therefore will affect the magnitude of constant capital that is transferred to the value of commodities. However, the increase of wages: (1) will not affect the new value component of the value of commodities (because N = m Lc) and hence (2) will have an inverse effect on surplus-value (since S = N - V = m (Lc - Ln)). I argue that these two propositions are the core of Marx's labor theory of value. The fact that the transferred value component of the price of commodities is not proportional to the labor-time embodied in the means of production and is affected by a change of wages does not change or affect either of these two core propositions. As I have argued before, the quantity of past labor embodied in the means of production already has acquired the social form of price. Means of production do not enter production as mere physical quantities, but rather as commodities, i.e. with a price. This price is the social expression of the past labor embodied in the means of production (although it is not proportional to this past labor), and it is in this social form of price that the past labor embodied in the means of production enters into the determination of the value of the output. Because this past labor already has acquired the form of price, it does not enter directly in the form of labor-time into the determination of the value of the output. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST