I have a question to pose to Diego. If the basket of consumption is historically determined and change -- that is, the elements that compose such a basket change -- what can we say about the value of that basket? Does it tend to increase? Does it tend to decrease? If the value of the basket tend to increase, given the lenght of the working day, we would have a reduction in relative surplus value. The contrary of what Marx argued. I think the evolution of the value of labor power is an important issue. It hasn't been tackled on its own right but only via the analysis of the rate of surplus value. The increase in the rate of surplus value, however, does not disclose to us the dynamic behind the evolution of the value of the labor power. It is only compatible with a rise VLP. Does naybody know any empirical analysis of the evolution of the value of labor power, that is, basket and price of the basket in different periods? Paulo Cipolla Diego wrote: > Re Jerry's [7045] and Nicky's [7046] Re Jerry's [7045] <<Why must that > "also be true"? And what level of aggregation are we talking > about?Since the VLP "contains a historical and moral element" and > therefore differs not only historically but for each society, the > aggregate that you refer to above can not be the world capitalist > economy but only an individual capitalist social formation. If that > is the case, then how can different kinds of labor in different social > formations be reduced to simple labor since "how much society needs" > varies by country?In other words, you (re-stating Brody) begin by > assuming that, at any moment in time, there is one VLP which can then > be disaggregated. What happens, though, when there are many V[s]LP > [values of labour power] in the world economy? >> I think that the > "historical and moral element" of the VLP refers to the regional > (national) definition of this commodity. All commodities are > historically defined: we don't want the same cars that thirty years > ago or the same computers that three years ago, thus the commodities's > components vary in time too (productivity improvements make it > possible). Therefore we need to define different national levels of > the VLP at each moment in historical time, i.e. I think Marx meant > that all others commodities (in the general case of the LTV) would > tend to have the same price throughout the world, but this would not > be the case for the labor power. <<On a related note, I find Brody's > general claim regarding models -- following Leontief -- about "how > similar static and dynamic, open and closed models are" (Andras Brody > _Proportions, prices and planning_, North-Holland, 970, p. l59) to be > highly problematic. Even more problematic, though, is assuming that > the VLP (and V[s]LP) can be expressed in a very similar way in > static vs. dynamic and open vs. closed models (I suspect that some > concepts of equilibrium and linearity, a la Leontief and von > Neumann, have to be smuggled in to bring about such results.) Yet > is it legitimate to conceive of value (and the V[s]LP specifically) > in the contemporary world capitalist economy as some sort of linear > equilibrium process? In solidarity, Jerry>> I think that some > elements in Leontief and von Neumann models are pure mathematical > elements, and may and should be detached from their material > components. For instance, one can dettach the instrumental way in > which Alfred Marshall or Joan Robinson drew some curves and use them > for different purposes without any need for sharing Marshall's or > Robinson's ideas about the capitalist society. Re Nicky's > [7046]: <<Even in a single social formation, how do you arrive at the > 'value' of the > consumption bundle (means of consumption) in labour hours?: > 1) how do you compare the different kinds of skills that go into > producing > different commodities, and reducing them to simple labour hours? Marx > > himself aimed to save the trouble of making this reduction, by > considering > labour time to be only an 'immanent measure' (i.e. not computable). > 2) The actual measure is money; has to be. For one thing, money wages > are > paid before production but the real wage is known only after > production. > So the value of labour power is also only known after production in > terms > of what the real wage can buy (i.e. the consumption bundle, also > priced in > money terms). > 3) Since we have money to measure value, why do you want to measure it > in > labour hours? (i.e. what's the point of doing so). To prove that > labour > power is the source of value what is needed is not an actual measure > in > time units but an argument that capital (in aggregate) makes a > purchase > external to itself (in the payment of wages) and that this is the > source of > an increase in money, M-C-M', once capital makes use of labour in > production to produce commodities which have (potentially) a money > price > greater than the original advance. The transfer of means of > production and > natural resources (given universal property rights) cannot contribute > to > this increase since it is internal to the capitalist class (i.e. one > capitalist's purchase is another's sale). The only advance at M, > then, > *is* the advance to labour. > comradely > Nicky >>In [6848] I mentioned my conception of the relationship > between value and price. In the theoretical model, we know that what > is needed to reproduce any commodity (including the LP) can be reduced > to labor. What is needed to reproduce the entire class of wage > producers is also a given quantity of labor. There is a one > relationship between the total amount of hours spent in this national > society and the total amount of money spent to pay wages in this > national society. What I meant in [7044] was that beginning with these > totals we can disaggregate them as minutely as we want. But for > practical purposes of measuring VLP (=PLP) in concrete social > formations we can start with labor quantities (more difficult to know; > in fact, unknown in principle) or with money quantities or other > commodities quantities (which both express labor quantities, either > measured as monetary or real wages). At the theoretical level what we > need to compare in order to figure out the VLP of different types of > labor power is the labor society needs to reproduce each of them. But > all we can know in principle is the quantities of money actually paid > to each type of LP, which means: we don't know their "direct" or > "production" values (both equally theoretical) but just their > "effective" values (the only practical or real prices in the sense > that they are the ones used in business). It is my contention that: 1) > Marx believed that taking effective values of all inputs (including > fresh labor spent in the production process) would be a sufficiently > accurate measure of the real values of outputs, as he was interested > in the processes of value formation of every output, which are > (socially and technically) unique at each point of time. His aim was a > dynamical one, of course. 2) We can do so, but we can also use the > mathematical methods which are usual in theoretical analyses and which > allow us to replace the effective values of the inputs by the same > "theoretical" values we are interested in, as theorists, to figure out > for each moment in time, since our purpose is to understand the > operation of actual prices in real time. (By the way, building the > balance sheet of a firm does not amount to abandon the dynamical view > offered by its revenue and expense accounts; the balance sheet, a > static instrument, can be used dynamically). Comradely,Diego
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:10 EDT