From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2007 - 12:42:15 EDT
I beg to differ. A soon as you try to compute aggregate figures for the capitalist class as a whole you get these problems Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Pen-L Fred Moseley Sent: Sun 3/18/2007 2:26 AM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > Ian: > Ajit, on the specific and narrow issue of whether M, as the total > money-capital advanced, can be taken to as given data, the answer is > of course yes. M appears in many different forms no doubt, from cash > to electronic transfers to firm accounts, but nonetheless it is a real > quantity, as objective as the physical inputs arriving at the factory > gates. > > Paul: > > Physical inputs are easy to identify but change the definition of > the forms you will accept for M and you get very different quanties. > > 1. Does it mean cash balances ( notes and coin, cash in hand ) > 2. Does it mean credit balances with the banking system? > 3. Does it include overdrafts with the banks? > 4. Does it include overdraft rights with the banks? > > When summing 2 and 3 above is the answer 2+ |3| or 2+3 or |2+3| ? Paul, the M that we have been discussing is not the supply of money. Rather, the M is the quantity of money capital advanced to purchase means of production and labor-power (i.e. the M in M - C ... P ... C' - M'), in whatever forms of money is used to make the purchase. So in principle, these quantities of money capital are just as easy to identify as the physical inputs. Comradely, Fred > To whom is the money capital advanced? > > To workers? - but they are paid in arrears > To other capitalists? in which case how does one form a sum of it > over all capitalists? > > > Paul Cockshott > > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of Ian Wright > Sent: Fri 3/16/2007 5:44 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > >> 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? > > Ajit, on the specific and narrow issue of whether M, as the total > money-capital advanced, can be taken to as given data, the answer is > of course yes. M appears in many different forms no doubt, from cash > to electronic transfers to firm accounts, but nonetheless it is a real > quantity, as objective as the physical inputs arriving at the factory > gates. One of my difficulties with Sraffa is that his objectivism does > not extend to counting money-flows in the economy. The man in the moon > is, as it were, blind to monetary character of capitalist production. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT