In ope-l 3402, Alan wrote:
"A fourth view ... is that the new monetary expression of value is given by
the ratio between the value and the price of the gross product of
society ....
"I personally would modify this for fixed capital, to calculate the
MEV as the ratio between the value and the price of the total stock of
society including its fixed and monetary assets. Here I differ from Andrew as
can be seen from his Okishio example. But if fixed capital is
neglected, we all ought to be able to agree."
No, Alan, I'm in total agreement with you here. As I wrote in ope-l 3307:
"Thus, I understand the MEV at any moment to be the ratio of the
money value to the labor-time value of the product. (Actually, however, since
money is spent on and used to value non-produced assets, I think that, in a
*real* economy, the numerator should be the money value of *all* alienable
assets and the denominator their labor-time value.)"
My examples concerning the Okishio theorem --- the one in the book and the
earlier one in the RRPE --- assume a constant MEV or value of money. They do
not derive it from anything.
What you seem to disagree with me about is this: I think that, in Marx's
theory, the total value of the product, in LABOR-TIME terms, is the value of
the consumed constant capital (circulating + depreciation of fixed) and the
new value added by living labor. You seem to say that the change in the
value of the economy's assets during the accounting period --- again in
labor-time terms --- is the value added by living labor. These two concepts
give different answers.
I'm still not 100ure that this is what you say, however. In any case, the
difference in our interpretations of Marx's theory does *not* concern the
relation between labor-time and money.
Andrew Kliman