From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Mar 25 2007 - 12:22:59 EDT
>Quoting Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>: > >>Fred, >>What Marx is saying is simple: "In writing up my tables, I assumed >>that the value transferred from the used up means of production was >>proportional to the cost price of the used up means of production but >>since we now know that the means of production had to have been >>purchased at market prices regulated by prices of production rather >>than value, I really don't have a way of determining the value >>transferred in each branch from the cost price of using up of means >>of production, but we should not assume that the value transferred is >>proportional to (or can be identified with) the cost price of the >>used up means of production. I also assumed that wage goods were >>bought at value but as they probably sold above or below value, fewer >>or more workers could have been hired with the advanced v than I >>assumed, and the rate of surplus value was accordingly lower or >>higher than I had assumed. Now that I have introduced the >>understanding of the difference between price of production and >>value, I should revise my transformation tables so that I do not >>identify the value transferred from the means of production with the >>manifest cost price of the used up means of production, but I have no >>way of determining from what is available to me in a fetishistic >>economy--that is, price data--what the exact respective values of the >>used up means of production were, but it also does not really matter >>to the logic of the transformation as we know the total new value >>added will tend to be distributed to equalize profit rates on the >>basis of differences in the cost prices of the various sectors. " > > >Rakesh, as both of us know, you and I have very different >interpretations of Marx’s theory of prices of production. I interpret >this theory as moving from aggregate prices to industry prices (and >from total money surplus-value to industry average profit). And you >interpret this theory as moving from prices back to labor-times (which >you have called, following my suggestion if I remember correctly, an >“inverse transformation problem”). > >I think we are going to have to leave it at that for now. But that still leaves unaddressed this point: you are just asserting--not demonstrating or proving--that the prices of production of the mop and mos bought with the initial M had to have been the same as the prices of production which you derive with your sequential monetary macro method predicated on the LTV. Simply put, there is a difference between assertion and demonstration. Rakesh > >Comradely, >Fred > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >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