From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 16:42:13 EST
--- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote: > > 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. _____________________ Not really. A "given market" takes care of all what you are saying. In any case, given your averages, the question still remains on what basis you say that if a jeans is sold for $100, then its "market value" is 100 hoursof labor? That was the question. > > __________________________________________ > > > > 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 __________________ Sorry! I cannot follow your mathematics. You are using fonts that are not compatible with internet fonts. If you put it in readable fonts then I may be able to comment on them. > > _______________________________________ > > > > 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. _________________________ Yah, but how do you find out what would be the equal rate of profits in the system? ____________________ 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. ___________________ But since from market prices you have already "deduced" that 1 hour of labor = $1, how could direct price be different from market price? ____________________ > > > > 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. ___________________ Yah, but how do you find those ideal measures is the question. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > _______________________ > > 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: > > > > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST