On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Drewk wrote: > Fred Moseley writes in OPE-L 4865: > > "Kliman and McGlone's interpretation [i.e., the temporal > single-system interpretation] of Marx's "prices of production" is > erroneous. According to their interpretation, > "prices of production" continue to change from period to period, > EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR > ANYWHERE IN THE ECONOMY! (See for example, the 14 periods in > Andrew and Ted's numerical example in their first (1988) > article)." > > Fred, just how do you think you know the changes in prices aren't > the result of productivity changes? What is it that creates the > difference between input and output prices in the *initial* > period? > > It might well be a difference in productivity in period 1 as > against period 0, and all the changes in periods 2, 3, etc. are > part of the adjustment of prices in response to that productivity > change. Andrew, I think this because I have read your papers. For example, in your original (1988) C&C article, you assume that the input prices in period 1 are equal to the value of commodities (i.e. proportional to the labor-time embodied in commodities). These inputs are produced in the previous period 0 and the input prices (i.e. values) are determined in the previous period 0 (p. 72). Nothing is said about a change in productivity between period 0 and period 1. The output prices in period 1 are then determined by the equalization of profit rates across industries with unequal compositions of capital This is what determines the initial difference between input prices and output prices in period 1: the transformation of values from period 0 into prices of production in period 1. Nothing is said about this difference being due to a change in the productivity of labor between period 0 and period 1. This initial period is then followed by 13 more periods in which prices of production continue to change in every period, even though there is no change in the productivity of labor. All the physical quantities remain the same in all periods. You even emphasize that prices of production are different from period to period, even though technology and the real wage remain constant (p. 70). This is clearly contrary to Marx's prices of production. Furthermore, the framework of analysis for your entire article is simple reproduction, which is interpreted as a sequence of periods in which the physical quantities (the use-values) remain the same, but the prices of production continue to change. Nothing is said in the whole article about a change in the productivity of labor prior to period 1. That is why I conclude that your "prices of production" change from period to period, even though there is no change in the productivity of labor, which is contrary to Marx's prices of production. I will respond in a subsequent post to your criticism of my interpretation of Marx's theory. The issue in this post is your interpretation. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST