From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Mar 16 2007 - 12:48:20 EDT
--- Pen-L Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > Fred: > Yes, you can. You can “get a money measure of > constant capital” > (and > also variable capital) from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS (as > long-period > averages). Capitalists invest a certain quantity of > money capital (M) > in the sphere of circulation, prior to the production > of output, to > purcase means of production and labor-power. This > empirical quantity > of money capital ALREADY EXISTS, prior to production, > and therefore CAN > BE TAKEN AS GIVEN AS SUCH in the determination of the > total price of > the output and the total surplus-value (which is the > main goal of the > theory), as explained below: > _______________________ > Ajit: > Fred, I gave you an example. The capitalist has 50 > pounds of silver, which empirically already exists, > with which he goes to buy constant capital and > variable capital in the sphere of circulation. The > prices of y and z and the wages of labor-power already > exists also. Who is denying that they don't exist. Now > you tell me how is this capitalist investing this > empirically existing money capital of 50 pounds of > silver. That is the question. If capital letters could > substitute for arguments then life would be much > easier. I don’t understand your question. Do you mean HOW MUCH the capitalist is investing? The answer to HOW the capitalist is investing is obvious – to purchase means of production and labor-power. The answer to HOW MUCH is – it is what it is, in the real capitalist economy, without explanation at this point. Whatever the capitalist invests, be it the whole 50 pounds or some part of it, that is what is taken as given in Marx’s theory. The theory does not have to explain (at least not to begin with) why this amount is 50 pounds or 47 pounds or whatever. It is what it is, as already spent, prior to the production of the output, and taken as given as such. The main question of Marx’s theory is: how does the initial given M become (M + dM)? ____________________________ Ajit: How much is your M, Fred? Just tell me how much is your M. If you are going to begin your theory with a given M, you need to know how much it is. I'm not asking for any explanation, just tell me how much it is. Where do you get your data for M? If you are unable to tell us how much is your M, then how could you claim that M increases to (M + dM)? Just think about it? ________________________________ > 1. The given empirical M is divided into C + V. C is > the money > capital advanced to purchase means of production, and > V is the money > capital advanced to purchase labor-power. > ______________________ > Ajit: > So why not just take my example and show me how is it > done. > __________________ > Fred: > 2. The given empirical C becomes one component of the > total price of > the output (i.e. C is “transferred” to the price of > the output). > ____________________ > Ajit: > So, how much is C in the example I gave above? > __________________ > Fred: > The other component of the total price is the new > value produced by current > labor (see #3 below), so that: > > P = C + N > > The given empirical C becomes the first component of > the price of the > output, no matter what determines the magnitude of C. > It is not > necessary to know the determination C in order for C > to be the first > component of P. > ___________________ > Ajit: > But as I have shown above, you will not know C unless > you know P. I guess you would also know the unit prices, but these would be irrelevant data. Unit prices play no role in Marx’s theory. ____________ I see! ____________ > You may differentiate P of inputs from P > of outputs and claim that P of inputs are known. If > you are doing that, then clarify your position. Yes, I am definitely distinguishing between prices of inputs and prices of outputs. There is not simultaneous determination in Marx’s theory, but rather sequential determination. The prices of the inputs (total prices, not unit prices) are taken as given in the determination of the prices of the outputs (again total prices, not unit prices), and most importantly in the determination of the total surplus-value. ________________________ Ajit: I'm sure I didn't go to the same school as you did. But I, for the life of me, can't understand what is this "total prices". What do you understand by the concept of price? ______________________ > Fred: > The first component of the total P is the actual > empirical C (as indeed it is in reality), whatever the > magnitude of C. > _____________________ > Ajit: > Since I'm getting tired of your "empirical C", I must > ask you once again, what do you mean by "empirical C"? > When I walk around Paris I don't ever come across the > empirical C. So actually, it is somekind of data you > must be getting from somewhere. Where are you getting > this data from? I have not saying that I have a data estimate for C. I am saying that C already exists, and is in principle observable, and that this already existing C is taken as given, whatever it is, in the determination of total value and total surplus-value. __________________ Ajit: If you don't have the data (in principle) then all this talk about "given" and "empirically existing" is pure non-sense. ________________ > Fred: > The first component of the total P is not a > hypothetical quantity > (equal to the labor-values of the means of production, > as in the > standard interpretation), because then the total P > determined would be > a hypothetical total P, not the actual total P, which > the theory is > intended to explain. > > 3. N is determined by the product of SNLT (L) and the > MELT (m), both > of which are also taken as given: > > N = m L > ______________________ > Ajit: > Who gave you m? m in Capital is determined by the value of gold, which is taken as given (it is equal to the inverse of the value of a unit of gold). Without commodity money, the determination of m is more problematic. I have written about this issue, and also discussed it on OPEL, but I would like to set this issue aside for now, and keep the focus on the given C and V. _______________________ Ajit: But who is talking about Capital, the book? I want to talk to you not Marx. You have introduced the little m not Marx, and all your variables become non-sense without the knowledge of the value of m. So it is legitimate for anybody to ask you, how do you get your m? _______________________ > I take that L is data. However, you > should keep in mind that your SNLT (L) is not > "empirically given". You will need to do a lot of > maniulations of the labor employment data and make a > lot of assumptions to arrive at your SNLT. But I let > this SNLT pass for now. L is abstract labor (SNLT) and therefore is not observable as such (because of unequal skills and unequal intensities). But it is assumed to exist, even though not observable, and is assumed to determine N. ____________________ Ajit: Everything is *assumed to exist* even though they are not *observable* but still you put them as variables in quantitative equations add, subtract, multiply them with whatever you feel like and all this is supposed to be a theory, and that too Marx's theory? Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT