Andrew
------
Paul notes that my examples showing that simultaneous valuation is
incompatible with the determination of value by labor-time are an
accounting problem. Sure. What I said was that they are not a
"mere" accounting problem. Why not? Because the relations of
determination implied by temporal and simultaneous valuation
differ, as can be seen by the fact that the quantitative results differ.
Paul
----
But such accounting problems really do occur.
Capital goods are purchased, and later have to be
revalued to a higher or lower valuation.
This is entirely what one would expect on a
synchronous field approach to value. I do not
see how evidence that this occurs can be taken
to disprove such an approach. It would seem to
be confirmation of it.
Andrew
------
You're right, I should have expressed the theorem more clearly. Actually,
I meant neither (a) nor (b), but something "in-between." A change in
labor-time requirements *as such*, i.e., a change that does not affect
the *relative values* of the simultaenous interpretation, will never
have an effect on any simultaneist profit rate (individual or general,
"value" or "price").
Paul
----
This seems to me to be just more evidence of the good
sense of a simultaneous approach to valuation.
If there is a 1 0ncrease in labour productivity,
and a 1 0ecline in the employed workforce,
but the new smaller workforce
continues to earn the same total wage as before,
then there will be no change in the flow rate of
profit - ( we can make no assertions about stock
rates in these circumstances without more data,
but all your examples were of flow rates ).
Are you saying that this is empirically false?
If so, what effect do you expect it to have on
the profit rate, and what program of research would
you advocate to test your hypothesis.