From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 09:08:30 EST
Re Andy's [7950]: > You mention that your reply to Simon is also a reply to my own > posts. I actually thought that my own posts addressed the issues > you raise here, however. I wonder if you could double check to see > if they do indeed meet your concerns? Upon reading your comment in [7934], responding to Simon's [7930], that "I could live for a hundred years and never put it as concisely and clearly as does Simon", I felt I could answer the issues you raised via an answer to Simon's post. However, it is true -- as the following post and [7933] show -- that you have nuanced your position such that it is different from Simon's and so therefore deserves a separate answer. > > > Then we need to express the TCC in value terms. > > Herein lies the rub. If that is the case then why have the > > distinction between TCC and VCC to begin with? > In [7933] I tried to address this point. Basically there is a clear > conceptual distinction between the ratio in physical terms (the > TCC) and the ratio in value terms (both the OCC and the VCC). The > TCC, as a vector divided by a scalar is not in general comparable > across time and space but this doesn't make it meaningless, nor > does it make it a value category. OK. > It does mean that for the > purposes of economic theory we have to 'assess' the TCC in value > terms. I don't think that there can be any meaningful and unproblematic way in which we can 'assess' (calculate?) use-value. [btw, I agree with your comments on the usefulness of measuring the "mass" of means of production in [7933]. Furthermore, let me note that since the advent of such technological developments as the transistor and the microprocessor there has been a trend towards the *miniaturization of means of production* (which, along with the trend for more energy- efficient means of production, also implies economies in the use of circulating capital and reductions in rent) which suggest a trend towards decreasing ''mass" of MP.] > For it is the 'value assessment' of the TCC that counts, e.g. > in the determination of the profit rate. The question is, which values > should we use to assess the TCC? I don't think that use-values can be accurately "assessed", i.e. assigned a meaningful magnitude. [and we should avoid a contrivance like the marginalist pseudo-measure "utils".] > Now, in the dynamic case > (addressed by Simon, and the easiest one to understand) then one > can see the OCC as a constant price measure and the VCC as a > current price measure. In the static case of the transformation > problem one simply holds the OCC constant (because the TCC is > unchanged) as we go through a logical rather than temporal > sequence, first looking at the 'value' rate of profit (i.e. before profit > rate equalisation) and second at the 'price' rate of profit (the > equalised rate). Again, I simply can't stress too highly how > important this is because it blows away the myth that Marx's > procedure is flawed because he 'failed' to transform the inputs. Since the above appears to be a summary of a presentation that I am not familiar with (from Alfredo's book? ... your dissertation?) I'll not comment at this time. > Above I have suggested that there are overwhelming theoretical > 'advantages' with the distinction. In short, it clears up the > controversy over both the TP and the LTRPF. How much more > useful can you get!?:) For the same reason I indicated above, I will not comment on this assertion. > I agree with you that the TCC must be kept as a use value notion, > as I have tried to explain above and in previous posts. Also I have > (following my [7933]) accordingly modified my exposition of the > OCC (in line with Alfredo's own exposition). I now say that the OCC > is a 'value-reflex' or 'value assessment' of the TCC. This has a > rather different connotation to the notion of an 'index' of the TCC, > since it does not suggest that the TCC is an unambiguous pre- > given quantity. Yes, it's different. But, I'm not convinced that the underlying issue is satisfactorily answered. You still attempt to assign some way of measuring/assessing the TCC. How *exactly* is this done? > I would also agree that there is a dialectical unity between value > and use value, running through all of Marx's 'Capital', and that this > is of course present in the TCC / VCC distinction, and indeed the > latter distinction is a more concrete expresison of the basic use > value / value distinction introduced in Vol 1. However, I am still not > clear on how, on your account, the term 'OCC' is necessary to > express this unity. Why not just say 'CC'? The VCC doesn't *by itself*, i.e. in isolation from the TCC, encompass that distinction. It is the OCC rather that 'mirrors' both the VCC and TCC. That is, it is only the OCC -- rather than the TCC or VCC -- which encompasses both the use-value and value sides. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 08 2002 - 00:00:01 EST