[OPE-L:7350] Re: RE: Re: interpreting Marx's texts

From: Diego (diego.guerrero@cps.ucm.es)
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 12:45:47 EDT

> Obviously this is a huge issue, so let me make a small point.  The
> of "simultaneous" versus "prior" is perhaps a little  misleading here.
> simultaneous equation formulations of Marx's value theory don't take a
> on the temporal priority of determination: they simply maintain that if
> real wage is given the profit rate cannot be explained INDEPENDENTLY of
> of production. If one accepts this proposition then there are two options
> reading Marx: either (i) the rate of profit he has in mind is an
> different entity from what is traditionally understood by the normal rate
> profit: he's talking about a different concept from the one Smith and
> had in mind when they referred to the profit rate; or (ii) Marx's
> of the profit rate, if he means by "profit rate" what Smith and Ricardo
> is incorrect.
> Gary

I agree in that the simultaneous equations formulation does not mean to
forget the dynamical approach. Let's me put an example. We can have
declining costs of production if we depict a curve cost with respect to real
time. But if we cut in a moment of this period we can imagine a typical U
cost curve (with respecto to Q, the firm's output). An U curve is not a
mistake per se. Which is a mistake is interpret it as something relating to
time. From this point of view, in real time we would have in fact a
succesion of different U curves each one of them below the previous one (in

Likewise, a simultaneous equations formulation gives us the values at moment
t. The subsequent moment will give us different values (moment t+1). But due
to the greater complication of dynamical formulations, anybody interested in
a dymanic approach may and should be interested in the simpler approach
offered by static methods (as a first step).

I disagree with you in the second part of your paragraph. The real wage you
seem to have in mind is not the actual "real wage", but a kind of wage
deflacted with theoretical production prices. As you have to accept
therefore a difference between actual and normal rates of profit, why do not
you accept another difference between the direct-price-rate of profit and
the production-price-rate of profit, with the former acting as the regulator
of the latter? This is one of the reasons why Marx is above Smith and


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT