From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 07:43:39 EDT
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 00:10 -0700, Ian Wright wrote: > > In the abstract, the reason Marx's theory appears to break down is > that his explanation of the production of surplus-value is "symmetry > breaking": the labour-value added by workers exceeds the labour-value > of the inputs to worker households (input labour-values do not equal > output labour-values). But in self-replacing equilibrium the price > system is "symmetry preserving": the price of every commodity, > including labour, exactly equals the price of the inputs used-up to > produce it (input prices equal output prices). Given the conditions of > the problem there cannot be a conservative transform between the > labour-value system and the price system in this special case. Hence > the transformation problem (TP). (My recent paper goes into this in > great detail). > Have I misunderstood? When you say "the price of every commodity, including labour, exactly equals the price of the inputs used-up to produce it (input prices equal output prices)" do you actually mean that profits (sales less wage and non-wage costs) are zero? I guess you are treating capitalist consumption as an input to production. I cannot understand why you do this. Are you also saying that the value added by workers is equal to the value of workers' consumption? ___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT