This is response to Rakesh's (7386). Rakesh, we have been over some of these points on my interpretation many times, and I don't see us making any progress on these issues. I prefer to discuss right now the new issues that have come up, especially Carchedi's interpetation of Marx's prices of production (whether or not they are equilibrium prices). On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >>> Moreover, since you argue that prices of production do have the > >>> property of long term equilibrium prices, how does your monetary > >>> macro interpretation allow us to know that the prices of production > >>> which Marx derives could have been the prices of production for the > >>> inputs the monetary purchase of which you take as the given? > > > >Because the constant capital that is taken as given in Marx's theory of > >surplus-value and theory of prices of production in Volume 3 is equal to > >the AVERAGE SOCIAL COST of the means of production for all capitals > >together, and is NOT equal to the actual individual cost of the means of > >production for an individual capital. And the average social cost of the > >means of production is equal to the price of production of the means of > >production. That is how we know that the constant capital that is taken > >as given is equal to the price of production of the means of production. > > > You seem to be arguing here that the money capital laid out for > constant capital as a whole had to have approximated the prices of > production for means of production as a whole. Deviations cancel out > in the aggregate. > > But this does not seem to me to speak to my criticism: that we can > infer equality between constant capital and price of production in > the aggregate does not prove that the same unit prices of production > can regulate the market price of both the input and output means of > production. Yet--as I say above--this would have to be the case given > your equilibrium price of production theory; the problem is that the > monetary macro method does not allow us to validate that equilibrium > unit prices of production have in fact been derived. Which I think > gives two options: maintain the equilibrium assumption and defend > Shaikh's iteration or break out of the box of equilibrium with > Carchedi. Rakesh, I am not just talking about capital as a whole. I am also arguing that FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL, the constant capital that is taken as given is NOT the ACTUAL capital invested to purchase means of production, which may deviate from the prices of production of the means of production, but rather the AVERAGE capital invested to purchase these means of production, which by definition is equal to the prices of production of the means of production. This is the point that Carchedi emphasizes. > >Rakesh, you say that my interpretation of the determination of constant > >capital is different from Carchedi's, but this is not true. > > > No I say that the equilibrium feature which you attribute to Marxian > prices of production is rejected by Carchedi. I am going to jump > ahead of your interpretation of Carchedi--is he interested in > rejoining OPE-L? I presume by "equilibrium feature" you mean that the value transferred from the means of production to the prices of production of the outputs is equal to the prices of the means of production as output in the same period, right? If not, then would you please clarify just what "equilibrium feature" is rejected by Carchedi? If so, then please provide textual evidence from Carchedi to support this interpretation. Rakesh, I would appreciate it if you responded to the passages that I have presented from Carchedi that support my claim that Carchedi interprets Marx's prices of production as equilibrium prices (in the sense described above). It would be great if Carchedi rejoined OPEL, but in the meantime we can discuss his interpretation of Marx. You claimed above that Carchedi "breaks out of the box of equilibrium". In what sense do you mean? And how do you explain all the passages that I have presented, which suggest that Carchedi interpreted Marx's prices of production as equilibrium prices? And what passages can you present to support your interpretation of Carchedi? You later describe Carchedi's interpretation as "sequential". What does this mean with regard to the determination of the constant capital that is transferred to the price of production of the output? Rakesh, thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EDT