re 5051 >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > >> Andrew's short-run equilibrium prices of production change from >> period to period, even though there is no change in productivity. >> I think this is contrary to Marx's prices of production, which are >> the long-run equilibrium prices at the end of the adjustment >> process, and change only due to changes in productivity. >> >> What do you think? > >I think that if one says "Changes in E are due solely to changes in >C", in a context where lagged adjustment may occur, this should be >taken to mean > > All changes in E can be ascribed or traced back to current or > prior changes in C > >which does not imply > > You'll never see a slice of time in which E changes but C does > not > >[N.B., I'm not actually defending Andrew's concept of prices of >production; I'm just suggesting that the sort of quotation you have >brought forward doesn't settle the matter.] > >Allin. In contradiction to what I said before, Marx does allow a strong demand shift to change market value and by implication price of production in the next chapter, ch 10, vol III. That is, a strong demand shift may cause a high or low cost producer to now determine the value of a commodity. In this case changes in E would then ultimately be traced back not to not C but D. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST