A reply to Fred's ope-l 2546.
Fred writes that according to his interpretation of Marx's transformation
of commodity values into production prices, "The prices and the rate of
profit will not have to change further as a result of an incomplete
equalization of profit rates left over from the previous period, as in
KM's [Kliman and McGlone, not Karl Marx] interpretation."
In our interpretation, if commodities sell at their prices of production
in any period then (by definition) profit rates are (completely) equal
in that period. There is no "imcomplete equalization of profit rates
left over from [this] period."
Fred also writes: "I am arguing that, in this subsequent transformation
of surplus-value into profit [in the next period], if everything else
remains unchanged, then the prices of production and the rate of profit
will also remain unchanged." The key phrase here is "if everything
else remains unchanged." We agree that if *everything* else remains
unchanged, including input prices (the input prices of the first period
are the same as those of the 2d), then prices of production and the
rate of profit will also remain unchanged. Fred appears to mean, however,
that prices of production and the rate of profit will not change if everything
else *except* input prices remains unchanged. But why?
The answer Fred gives is that, in our interpretation, profit rates are not
completely equalized in the prior period. As I've just noted, however,
they are. So I'd like Fred to clarify whether there is another reason
prices of production and the general rate of profit should not change
even if input prices change and, if so, whether there is textual or other
support for this stipulation.
Andrew Kliman