From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 14:40:39 EST
Quoting mongiovg <mongiovg@stjohns.edu in 8587 Hi Gary, > Hi. I certainly never asserted that the values (that is, prices) of > commodities don't change over time. Nor, for that matter, do > neoclassical > economists claim that. Obviously prices do change over time. But if > you accept > the claim that market prices gravitate toward price of production, > then you > need a theory of the latter, and to my knowledge the only > satisfactory > explanations of prices of production entail the use of the the > long-period > method. If one takes as the living standard of workers and the > technical > conditions of production (socially necessary labor, in Marx) as given > within a > particular historical stage of an economy's development, then prices > of > production will coincide with the solution to Sraffa's equations. I > find > nothing in Marx that is inconsistent with these assumptions, and much > that > supports it. As I have tried to say, there is even evidence in Ricardo which is inconsistent with these assumptios. Indeed, the very concept of socially necessary labor > presumes > that the technical conditions of production are given within the > context of > the discussion of the determination of relative values: Marx is > talking about > what Joan Robinson called blueprints. Given the dynamism of capitalism, I find it more reasonable to assume that the inputs were produced under different technical conditions than the outputs are being produced. > > If all you're claiming is that Marx never supposed prices to be > constant over > time, well, yes, I agree. But nobody else does supposes that either. > None of > this amounts to a credible defense of the TSS approach, which, as far > as I can > see, DENIES that profit rates tend to equalize: Again: even if as a result of the adjustment of market prices most sectors will not have made more or less than the average rate of profit over the long term, this in no way proves that there are unit equilibrium values or unit equilibrium prices of production which have remained stable over the long term and underneath the chaos of market prices. I argue in my paper > that this > outcome occurs only as an arbitrary special case in their framework. > > As to the possibility of all prices falling over time, I guess a > Sraffian > would ask "Falling in terms of what?" Unless you specify the > numeraire, > there's no way to gauge whether technical change in this sector or > that will > cause a price to rise or fall. We can get back to the numeraire quesiton. But Marx has no need for the standard commodity because the purchasing power of gold cannot change as a result of a change in distribution. The whole Malthusian-Ricardian problematic has no meaning in the context of Marx's treatment of gold as Naples has pointed out and as Fred and I argued last year on this list. Sraffa's standard commodity solves a problem raised by Malthus in Ricardian economics. Whether Ricardo would have accepted it is another question raised of course by Peach. But Sraffa's solution simply has nothing to do with Marx. Marx of course assumes by fiat that the value of gold is fixed so as to ensure that all changes in price happen on the commodity side of the equation. To ensure a falling rate of profit, > the price > of the wage bundle would have to fall relative to the price of labor > power, > and it would have to do so by a large enough magnitude to > more-than-counterbalance the cost reductions achieved by labor-saving > > technical change. Not very likely, in my view. In fact it's impossible that viable technical change will result in FROP if one assumes that input=output prices. Yours, Rakesh > > Gary > > >===== Original Message From rakeshb@stanford.edu ===== > >I recently had a chance to read Gary M's critique of TSS and Fred's > >paper at his website on this topic. > > > >After reviewing the passages which they cite, I continue to find no > >evidence that Marx believed that the value of commodities > >remained stable over the long term. To be sure, Marx clearly > >believed that there were powerful forces against most sectors of > >the economy or most industrial branches (excepting for example > >natural monopolies) making profits above or below the average > >over the long term. I believe that this is all Marx meant by the > idea > >of market prices gravitating prices of production over the long > term, > >i.e., the idea that in most cases no sector will make much more or > >less than the average rate of profit. > > > > > >In adopting Smith's and Ricardo's ideas about natural price, Marx > >was thus accepting only their vision of the competitive > equalization > >of profit rates over most sectors of the economy over time. > > > >However, the claim that unit commodity values are stable over the > >long term simply does NOT follow from the classicals' and Marx's > >recognition that in most cases (Fred and I both have discussed > >exceptions such as the gold industry) a sector's or industrial > >branch's profit rate will tend to converge towards the average over > >the long term. Unit commodity values do not have to be stable > >over the long term in order for market prices to gravitate towards > >prices of production such that the profit rate tends to equalize > >across most sectors over the long term. In fact there is no reason > >why the latter could not obtain with unit values falling (as they > in > >fact do) at different rates in different sectors or branches as a > >result of the unevenness of continuous (or inteperiodic) technical > >change. That Marx assumed constant values in his expanded > >reproduction schemes just indicates their distance (Grossmann > >was the first to recognize) from an actual diachronic theory of > >capitalist dynamics, not the extent to which Marx had committed > >himself to the idea of equiibrium values. > > > >I don't think a single passage cited by Gary or Fred however even > >suggests that Marx thought the value of the commodities remained > >constant over the long term. This is an assumption from neo > >classical or equilibrium economics. I have quoted even Ricardo > >saying that the value of commodities is changing daily! Marx was a > >less dynamic thinker than Ricardo?! > > > >As far as I can tell, neither Fred nor Gary has cited evidence from > >Marx against the TSS breaking of the input=output price > >assumption (Ernst, Carchedi, Freeman, Kliman). I think there is > >even less evidence from the real world of capitalist dynamics. > > > >Rakesh > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 00:00:01 EST