From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2006 - 17:15:57 EDT
Ian, I don't really know where you want to take the argument, I don't understand it properly. Is it poetry, is it a theoretical formula you want, or is it an empirical measurement you want. All the MELTS I've tried so far run into objections, so I need to tried harder for a MELT that really does the job, how's that for openers. You say, "To translate from prices to labour values we need a MELT." I don't follow this for a start, because as far as I understand: (1) Marxian values can be "expressed" only as (i) exchange ratios of labour-products, (ii) real or ideal money-prices, or (iii) quantities of labour time or (iv) some kind of ratio involving some or all of these three, and (2) the MELT refers to the MONETARY valuation of labour-TIME worked (paid labour and surplus labour). In its simplest expression: 1 average unit of abstract labour-time = N units of money, according to some standard valuation. You then move on to a slightly more sophisticated expression, such as: MELT = new value created / paid labour-time to produce it And then you can refine or qualify that a bit more. In the realm of THEORY, we can introduce all sorts of sophisticated subtleties to do with the circulation of money, commodites and capital and how this might affect the valuation of labour-time and its product. EMPIRICALLY (realm of observables), our ability to measure things is very limited, because all we have available qua relevant data is aggregate net output variables (and their main components) and paid hours worked variables, which we could adjust in various ways, e.g. to take account of a skilled/simple labour distinction, currency inflation and so on. The actual concepts which Marx uses in his text to express the social valuation of labour-time are vastly more subtle than you can measure in statistical aggregates, at most you can can some anecdotal evidence for those more subtle concepts, for illustrative purposes. For example the SNLT (I think) does not refer to a composite of past and living labor embodied, but to the average LT currently socially necessary to produce a product. Then there's stuff which Marx doesn't really discuss, e.g. that the employment of salaried labour in labour markets depends on a large amount of non-market (voluntary, unpaid) labour to operate at all. Even so, economists usually take official input/output measures for granted, use them for their ratios, and do not inquire further into them. They forget that these input/output measures have been compiled according to a standard official definition of gross and net value added, excluding some flows, including others, and adding imputations and valuation adjustments. As soon as you inquire more into the definitions and procedures used, you realise that the official output measures diverge in important ways, conceptually and quantitatively, from: (1) real sales revenue receipts, real costs, real profit income and real tax imposts. (2) the Marxian concept of the value product (broadly, the netted sum of wages, profits + interest + rent + tax & royalties on production + fees of various kinds, associated with the production of current output). In other words, the official output measures themselves are theoretical constructs which depend on a multitude of assumptions and accounting conventions. Having grasped that, you can go two ways: either you take the official output measure and introduce various adjustments to that measure, or you construct completely new output measures according to your own estimation procedure, working from various data sources (tax data, national accounts, administrative records, labor force statistics, census records etc.). Mostly, empirical researchers do not get further than the first option and some notion of direct/indirect prices or direct/indirect labour inputs. The main reasons are that (1) the second option is a hell of a lot more work, and (2) the first option is thought to be sufficient to provide a crude indicator of the trends. A third reason might be that (3) the data quality itself is not sufficient to warrant making very refined distinctions or manipulations in the data. If you were nasty, you could also say that (4) many scholars are a bit lazy, they invent theoretical reasons for not having to get their hands dirty in the effort of grappling with data, and having their theories disciplined by data. These sorts of considerations really lead to the question of what the specific purpose of this type research is, what is its goal. We might want to develop some empirical indicators, but what is it supposed to prove, in particular, and who does it persuade. Mathematically, we can trace out the logical implications of various theoretical postulates, and we try to get the equations to equate. Empirically, we can corroborate the theory. Now what? Are we emancipated more by that? Are we closer to the truth? In what way? I'm sorry, I am tired from the workweek and need to take a rest Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT