Re: [OPE-L] Marx on the 'maximum rate of profit'

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 14 2006 - 18:15:16 EDT


--- Paul Zarembka <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU> wrote:

> Ajit,
>
> Thanks for answering.  I know I was asking a simple
> question but those
> are often the hardest to answer.  For myself, I
> believe that joint
> production is a significant problem.
>
> Still, I wonder at your remark on Oct. 12: "You can
> have increasing
> productivity with falling organic composition of
> capital and you can
> have decreasing productivity with rising composition
> of capital."
>
> Given that you say C or C+V cannot be measured, I
> wonder why you discuss
> organic composition of capital at all.  But then I'm
> probably missing
> something else in your argumentation; perhaps a
> different definition of
> organic composition than I am familiar with.
>
> Paul
______________________________
Paul, now I understand your question. I was not
claiming that the labor-values of C or V cannot be
measured. What I was claiming is that to determine the
rate of profits one needs to measure capital
investment by the prices of production and not
labor-values, and since prices of production in
general differ from labor-values, the formula, Profit
= S/(C+V) is incorrect. But you are right that in the
presence of joint-production even calculating the
labor-values are quite problematic. I hope this
clarifies the confusion. Cheers, ajit
>
> Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>:
>
> > Paul, joint production has nothing to do with it.
> This
> > is quite well known--check Sraffa's chapter on
> dated
> > labor approach or Steedman's 'Marx after Sraffa'.
> > Actually the thing is clear in Ricado as well. If
> you
> > are asking me to work out the capital theory
> debate
> > here, then right now I don't have time for it--I'm
> > working on Ricardo right now, when I come to
> Sraffa,
> > I'll send you the chapter that will explain all
> that.
> > Cheers, ajit
> >
> > --- Paul Zarembka <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > > Ajit, I was principally asking about the basis
> of
> > > your concern expressed
> > >  by saying "capital cannot be measured by direct
> and
> > > indirect labor-time".
> > >
> > > For either C or C+V, is your concern joint
> > > production or something
> > > more/else?  C'est la question.  Paul Z.
> > >
> > > Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>:
> > >
> > > > --- Paul Zarembka <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ajit, Are you refering to the problem of
> joint
> > > > > production in the
> > > > > measurement of "C" (you mention "capital")
> or
> > > > > something else?  If
> > > > > something else, what specifically?  Thanks,
> Paul
> > > > ______________________
> > > > I mean (C+V) but it would also be correct if
> you
> > > take
> > > > only C and leave the V out. ajit
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > You should
> > > > > > > > note that it is well accepted that the
> > > formula
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > rate of profits as S/(C+V) is wrong,
> so
> > > you
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > check Sraffa to see whether the
> > > proposition
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > is obvious is all that obvious or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ajit, please tell us in what respect
> S/(C+v)
> > > is
> > > > > > > wrong according to
> > > > > > > others.  There are a lot of dimensions
> of
> > > this
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > and I cannot tell
> > > > > > > which you are referring to.
> > > > > > ________________________
> > > > > > Simple, capital cannot be measured by
> direct
> > > and
> > > > > > indirect labor-time. Cheers, ajit sinha
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST