From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 15:25:28 EST
> Ajit wrote: I'm guessing that by "market prices" you mean prices that you OBSERVE in a given market. So if we find that a blue jeans is sold for $100 then you say it's "market value" is equal to 100 hours of labor. Leaving aside what "market value" could mean, could you tell us on what basis you could say something like that? __________________________________________ Diego: Your guess is wrong because I am not saying something like that. My view is: if the whole mass of blue jeans produced all along the year and all across a country (or the entire world) is sold for a sum of money that, once divided by the number of blue jeans produced, gives us an average price of $100 per unit, then I say that its “market value” is equal to 100 hours of labour. That is quite a different thing from what you said. __________________________________________ A: Furthermore, since "prices of production" I guess, in your scheme, cannot be observed, what meaning can be given to the statement that 'if prices of production of a blue jeans is $200, then its "production value" would be 200 hours of labor? And same for direct value and direct prices--whatever they may mean. _______________________________________ D: See below _______________________________________ A: > (2) What is the difference between direct values, > production > values and market values and similarly with prices? > _______________________________________ D: When all prices and values are understood as averages in time and space, the difference between them is the following. The market price is actual price in the sense in what you say: “in 2005 the price of a digital TV in the world market was $x”. The price of production corresponds to a different price: the one that would equalize the rates of profits in all sectors included TV sector. The direct price of the TV is the price that would equate the rate of surplus-value in that sector with the average rate of surplus-value in the entire economy. Only market price is real, the other two are ideal or conceptual prices. In my view, each of those prices, as they differ quantitatively between them, are the monetary expressions of different quantities of labour provided we realize that the only real quantity of labour is that of the market value whereas the other two are ideal ones. _______________________ A: (3)Where does euro or dollar come from? Remember! > you > are in your theoretical world, where you have > apparently taken a set of production equations for > the > production of your commodities and wages for labor > etc. If you have specified a relationship of this > system with euro or dollar then make it explicit. > Otherwise, you have no option than to take something > like gold or silver, which is produced as a > commodity > in your system of production, as a measure of your > money variable. > _______________________________________ D: In my answer I quoted others and then you said: A: “Again, instead of giving a straight answer to a straight question, you are quoting other people. I don't care about what other people say, I want to know how in your theory a particular entity figures in. You should know it best and should be able to explain it best. Why quote anyone else? You say, "for every commodity I translate from labour to money by using "the average, social productivity of labour in terms of money", please explain how do you do this. __________________________________ D: I have already answered this question. I wrote to you: “As for the exact quantification of π [i.e. "the average, social productivity of labour in terms of money"], and having into account that total output holds invariable through both transformations (see below): (9) wx = px = mx, we reach the result that π can be defined either in gross terms (what we call π1): (10) π1 = mx/lx = px/lx = wx/lx or alternatively in net terms (π2): (11) π2 = m·(I-A)x / lx = p·(I-A)x / lx = w·(I-A)x / lx Therefore if we call all the A-values simply α, and all the B-prices β, we can express every horizontal movements going from A to B and vice versa in Table 1 as done in equation (12), whereupon we can conclude that this kind of movements are simply a sort of “translation” from one language to another, which can be checked in the apparent chaotic way of expression of Marx in Capital, that is not but the result of this double correspondence: (12) β = α ·π; (or: α = β/π)” And as I noted in another email: “Of course, the magnitude of π1 is not the same as π2, but the fact that they are respectively, let us say, 30 euro or 60 euro per hour of labour does not make any difference as regards the problem involved. So we will simply speak of π from now on.” All this means that, as it is seen in equations (10) and (11) you can use any of the three forms of price and any of the three forms of value since in the aggregate the totals of values amount to the same magnitude, and the same happens to prices. __________________________________ Ajit: In any case, let me guess what you are trying to say. You say that you take the dollar value of the net output produced in a year and make it equivalent to the total direct labor spent in a year. The ratio of total direct labor and total dollar value of the net output you DEFINE as "labor value of money". Now remember, your dollar value is based on the "market prices". So your labor value of money can only give you your "market value". This is nothing but calling a person John and Jack at the same time. But it does not carry any more information about the person than that John has a nick name and people close to him like to call him Jack. Where do you go from here? Cheers, ajit sinha _________________________________ D: Let me guess at my turn. I guess that both your price of production and your market price are defined in dollars, but their magnitude is different. Then this is nothing but calling a person Peter and Paul at the same time. But it does not carry any more information about the person than that Peter has a nick name and people close to him like to call him Paul. Where do you go from here? Cheers, Diego.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST