From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Tue Mar 20 2007 - 03:18:55 EDT
Hi Rakesh, I'm sorry but I'll stick by what I said. Gary Mongiovi had written: > Hi. Solow criticized the assumption of equal rates of SV, on the ground > that there is no mechanism that can bring about that equalization. He > contrasted that case with the equalization of profit rates, which, in the > absence of impediments to the movement of capital, is brought about by > intersectoral capital flows. In your post "Sraffa's Contribution to Marxian Political Economy" dated 27 February you replied that: "Solow's criticism is trivial, but I suppose his every utterance must be taken seriously. Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than convenience of calculation in his transformation. He also assumes in his calculations that the value transferred from the used up means of production is the same as the value of the money costs of the used up means of production. Both assumptions are false, and Marx knows it. But it also matters not to the logic of his demonstration of why and how it is concealed that price remains a function of value." There you have it: you said "Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than convenience of calculation in his transformation." What I've suggested is that Marx didn't assume "equalized s/v for no reason other than convenience of calculation", i.e. he had another reason, namely he believed that differences in s/v would as a long-term tendency be "balanced out by real or imaginary (conventional) grounds of compensation" and more specifically by competition among workers and labour mobility. You can of course say that "And I did not say that", but you did say it: "Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than convenience of calculation in his transformation." It's there in black and white. However what's important here is not you denying what you previously said, but Solow's criticism. Solow argues "there is no mechanism that can bring about that equalization". But Marx argues that there is, namely competition among workers, labour mobility and (presumably) juridical conventions or arbitrage - this point taken up by Michio Morishima among others. The issue is discussed in some detail by John Weeks in his book "Capital and exploitation", Chapter 3, Section A., where he criticizes Morishima: "One cannot consider the equalisation of either profits or wages across capitals unless one has a prior explanation of to what level equalization will gravitate" (p. 68). He adds in a note that "It is a wellknown empirical generalisation for industrial capitalist countries that the variance in wage rates among industries increases in periods of "boom" and decreases when accumulation slows or becomes negative" (ibid.). Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT