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

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Feb 09 2006 - 14:11:16 EST

Hi Ian,

Regarding your second question, 'why substance?', I think it is
important to address this question only after having addressed a prior
question, 'why scalar?'. The reason is that there can be no argument for
a 'substance' prior to the argument for a scalar. At least I do not
offer any such argument.

Turning to your first question, you ask, "[w]hy do you think that an
economic structure (e.g. i/o matrix) *must* be reduced to a non-price
scalar in order for the economy to reproduce over time?" My answer
begins with the familiar point that reproduction is *caused* by a
scalar, a scalar that we have been calling 'price' [this name is not
accurate given the arguments of my last post - an issue I ignore below].
This is not a matter of contingency. It is *continually* caused by this
scalar throughout the existence of capitalism. This scalar is the
dominant aspect of the social regulation of reproduction. Therefore this
scalar must be necessarily related to feasible reproduction proportions
(i.e. to self-reproducible economic structures). I spelt out a similar
proposition before so I think you agree with it.

Now, we know what is and what is not necessarily related to feasible
reproduction proportions by scrutinising them. (To comprehend an object
requires comprehension of its necessary relations). And on scrutinising
them, there is only one scalar to which they are necessarily related,
viz. SNLT. The extent to which Sraffian prices are related with feasible
reproduction proportions can only be determined by this prior scrutiny
of such proportions. If *no* scalar is necessarily related to feasible
reproduction proportions then price (a scalar) cannot be either. If
there is such a scalar (and there is one such, viz. SNLT), and this
scalar is not identical with price (which it is not) then this scalar
*must* tether price. (This tethering is dynamic and invisible to the
static Sraffian calculation). Otherwise the thing that continually
causes feasible reproduction proportions (price) is self-contradictorily
going to have no necessary relation to feasible reproduction

A telltale sign that we have some sort of deep disagreement here is that
the above just seems plain and obvious to me. Clearly it seems plainly
and obviously wrong to you. I wonder if my exposition has at least
helped to find where, precisely, our disagreement lies?

Many thanks,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 11 2006 - 00:00:01 EST