Re Riccardo's #2092 I will be less circumspect than Andrew. My reading is
this: Somebody finally got what we are saying. To avoid clogging up
an important clarification, I am therefore going to ship all my
qualifications separately and later.
Commenting my #2087 replying to Allin's #2070 Riccardo writes:
"From here you would go on calling the initial outlay for constant capital
[expressed in what would be called 'prices' according to the standard,
simultaneist, version of this issue] as the 'value' of constant capital.
To cut a long story short, Yes (long story next post)
"But this has nothing to do with labour _embodied_ in constant capital."
Yes, To Cut a Long Story Short - Long Story Next Post [henceforth TCLSS-LSNP])
"Then the wage goods will be sold at prices which, though reached
through Marx's procedure, have nothing to do with labour _embodied_ in
those same wage goods [here again the wage is expressed in prices for the
standard terminology]"
Yes, TCLSS-LSNP (Henceforth 'Yes')
"and we call this magnitude the 'value' of labour power."
Yes
"Hence, your values at the beginning are simply the prices of the previous
period. Am I right? "
Yes
"On this path is it not guaranteed from the beginning that the Marxian
tranformation will meet no difficulties?"
Jesu Bambino, after fifteen years somebody finally got it.
One point: You write: "it is not guaranteed?" But I assume you mean "is it not
guaranteed?"
The key point is: yes, it is GUARANTEED.
Alan
The reservations will be shipped shortly and concern the words
'simultaneist', 'embodied', and 'nothing to do with'. At this point
we discover whether I have really read Riccardo correctly.