Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 09:56:00 EST

Andrew Brown wrote:

>You wrote: "On the other hand I do not expect that, subject to total
>price=total value, then total profit=total surplus value. I would expect
>them to be related but only loosely."
>But the way I stated the argument was that, for any individual firm,
>money costs (money measure of c+v) will be close to labour-time costs
>(labour measure of c+v). The logic of this argument is that total money
>costs across the economy must be very close indeed to their labour time
>You also accept that total prices = total values.
>Total profit = total prices (money measure of total s+c+v) minus total
>costs (money measure of total c+v). Both terms of the RHS are also equal
>to their labour time measures so surplus value must equal total profit.

The problem lies in the difference between formal and real appropriation of
the surplus.

Money profit is an accounting entry and is not equivalent to real surplus
appropriation unless quite complex additional assumptions are made - like
there being no aggregate workers savings or borrowing, a trade balance etc.

Real surplus appropriation is the amount of labour required to produce the
commodities actually appropriated by the capitalist class as new means of
production or as personal consumption.

Money profit and real appropriation are not necessarily identical because
of the existence of money, and the possibility of any circuit c-m-c being
delayed for a longer or shorter period in the m phase.

>So I cannot have stated the argument you are making exactly correctly.
>Presumably the problem lies in the treatment of 'v'. Let me know.
>Many thanks

Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow

0141 330 3125

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 04 2006 - 00:00:01 EST