From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 03:47:34 EDT
--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote: > > > >_________________ > >Rakesh, None of these people can answer my very > simple > >question--the question that I asked you in the > other > >post, that you have not answered yet. So let me > again > >reiterate. Let's say somebody says, 'the value of a > >commodity x is 10 hours of socially necessary > abstract > >labor'; Is this statement formally correct or > >incorrect. If incorrect, then why and if correct, > then > >formally how can one arrive at the measure of 10 > hours > >of SNA labor? > > Ajit, I think it is the nature of a fetishistic > economy that we can > never measure with precision value which is > necessarily > mis-represented in the form of prices. All we have > are price > phenomena; that is why I have insisted that the > whole transformation > literature makes no sense. The unknowns are not > prices and the > average rate of profit; the unknowns are, and have > to be, the value > of the used up c, new value added and thus s/v. _________________ But Rakesh! You have forgotten to tell us what is "value", which is the unknown in the system. We need to know what is this animal called "value", which is the unknown in the system, and what kind of a system is this? ____________________ That > is the mistake > that Marx is claiming that he made in his > transformation tables. By > assuming that price was proportional to value, he > assumed that he > could determine from visible flow price data the > value transferred; > moreover, since wage goods could have sold above or > below value, he > had no way of knowing about much actual labor power > the money wage > could actually buy. ___________________ But how would you know whether something is above or below value without knowing where is value? ________________________ If wage goods sold above value, > he set s/v too > high in his transformation tables; if below value, > s/v should have > been higher. But we never know what s/v is before we > arrive at output > prices. We infer what s/v is from price data and > changes in s/v from > time series. And even then the data are distorted > and only allow > guesses. We also cannot make a direct measure of > the value of the > used up means of production. We know however that > its value is the > SNALT it represents. And we know whatever the value > of the used up c, > the output has greater value than the input and that > new value is > redistributed through the formation of an average > profit rate. ____________________ Rakesh, do you really understand what you are saying? And I'm serious here. ____________________ >> 4. While Hahn questions the assumption of input > and > >> output prices as > >> equal in order to enter demand considerations to > >> close the equations, > >> Giusanni, Freeman and others question that > >> assumption in order to put > >> technical change into the formalism. > >_________________ > > > >Hahn is coming from intertemporal general > equilibrium > >position. Whatever one may think of the GE, one > cannot > >deny that it is a theory of prices. For the A-D > model, > >different time periods define different > commodities, > >and thus can have different prices. But these > prices > >are determined by the determinants other than > prices. > >That's why it qualifies to be a theory of prices. > If > >they determined prices of a commodity in time t on > the > >basis of observed prices of the same commodity in > time > >t-1, then it would not be a theory of prices but > >rather be simple mumbo-jumbo, which is what TSS is. > > TSS does not determine prices at t only on the basis > of prices at t-1. __________________ So what are the other determinants? _________________________ > > > > >Hahn's critique of Sraffa on this score is not > sound. > >All Sraffa's equations are saying is that the rate > of > >profits is calculated on the basis of the > replacement > >coast of the physical capital items used up in > >production. As far as technical change is > concerned, > >since technique of production is one of the > >determinant of prices, a change in technique will > >definitely explain change in prices, but it will be > >the technique in use that must explain the prices > at > >any time. > > Prices at any one time (t) are the same as prices at > another time > (t-1). After all, even before the full onset of the > Industrial > Revolution, Ricardo had already recognized that > prices are changing > daily. __________________ But I had just said that Sraffa never said that prices in time (t-1) are the same as prices in time t. All he is saying is that the rate of profits is determined on the replacement costs of the used up capital. What is wrong about it? Cheers, ajit sinha > > Yours, Rakesh > > > > >Cheers, ajit sinha > > That seems to > >> me to be the real > >> fight--about how and why to drop the static > >> assumption in the > >> Sraffian formalism when it comes to studying > actual > >> capitalist > >> economies, ie. when one is doing more than > >> critiquing popular > >> mythology about the productivity of capital and > >> profit as just > >> reward. Sen implicitly recognizes Hahn's point > but > >> pays no attention > >> to the Marxian criticism. But that's where the > >> action is. > >> > >> Rakesh > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > >http://messenger.yahoo.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT