From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 09:37:43 EDT
>>> Duménil and Lévy (1999, p.17, 2000) reach an impasse: "Each joint product is disaggregated into as many single production processes as commodities produced. The difficulty lies in allocating inputs to the various commodities. A problem of indeterminacy is posed, that the theory of value, in the strict sense, cannot solve." <<< Phil, Although the issue as posed by Sraffa et al concerned basic theory, did you ask whether there is a _real_ indeterminacy? If one considers actual cases of joint production (such as the chemical industry where a single technology can be used by a single firm to produce dozens of distinct commodities) then the determination of value and market price on the micro level -- especially given the degree of product differentiation and advertising -- becomes very complex, to say the least. >>> If we were to follow Sraffa here I think we would have already gone wrong. Firstly, we should not operate with industries or processes. We should talk about firms rather than processes. <<< Why not talk about industries or branches of production? Why not talk about different technologies/processes being used within an industry/branch of production by capitalist firms? You obviously must have reasons for arguing that the focus should be on firms rather than industries and processes but you have not indicated what they are. >>> Further, we assert the principle that no two firms produce the same commodity. <<< Why? >>> They may produce very similar, even practically indistinguishable, use-values but never the same commodity. <<< This is generally the case in late capitalism, but the explanation is to be found by examining the changing forms of competition. >>> Sraffa's joint production processes are rigid in the sense that the joint products are produced in fixed proportions. If there is only one firm producing them we do not know how to split the constant capital transferred and the labour-power expended between the two products. Is this a problem? It would be a problem if, in this situation, the firm were producing two commodities. But is it? It produces two different types of use-value certainly. But why should we assume it is producing two different commodities? I shall argue that in rigid joint production there is only one "composite" commodity. I'm not sure if the following example is one of 'pure' joint production but you can tell me if I'm mistaken. Suppose there is a single firm using a single technology/process to produce shoes and boots. Aren't the shoes and boots 2 different commodities? It is hard to imagine a single 'composite' commodity (a shoot? ... a bhoe?). In any event, in this case what would prevent a firm from, for instance, selling shoes at a price below their value and boots at prices above their value? >>> The selling off of old machines or used vehicles to other firms could be treated similarly. Suppose the firm sold off its oldest vintage of vehicles once a year, then we treat the second hand vehicles as the same commodity as the firm's regular product. <<< This can be a pretty messy -- and 'indeterminate' -- topic because of moral depreciation. >>> Rigid joint production of limited interest. Production where outputs are produced in flexible proportions presents a more challenging problem. <<< OK. What do you see as are the issues posed at that more challenging level of analysis? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT