From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri Sep 21 2007 - 09:15:11 EDT
> The problem with Jerry's argument "Means of production and labour power > must be *purchased* before they can become inputs in the capitalist > production process" is that the valuation of inputs is itself defined in > terms of purchases across an accounting interval. Hi Jurriaan: The "accounting intervals" in the transformation analysis (which was what Paul C referred to in the post that I responded to) are (with all their inherent non-dynamic limitations) periods of production. > Functioning production capital however has no actual market price, > because it is withdrawn from the market to produce new products. It > has only a value and a use-value. True, but that's not a problem within the context of period analysis. > What the value is, is according to Marx not determined by input prices, >but by the average quantity of labour-time it currently represents or is >necessary to replace it under the given market and production conditions. I was not asserting that there is an identity between value and price. Rather, I was asserting that C and V have both a value and a price. They must have a price before the beginning of the production period for them to be sold and _then_ enter as "inputs" into the production process. It is (I hesitate to use this word since in the current discussions it has heavy connotations) a matter of the sequence. Yes, the temporal sequence. When I am referring here to temporal sequence I mean the logical, rather than historical or actual, sequence of events. The explanation of sequence was, after all, a big part of the analysis of circuits of capital earlier on in _Capital_ (in Part One of Volume 2 especially). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT