As we look at the concept of MEV in
TSS as I understand it, it seems
to me that we should ask how this
interpretation of the relation
between value and money corresponds to
that of Marx's. What concerns me is that
the TSS framework does not seem to allow
for the divergence between a commodity's
individual value and its social value.
Thus, as we look at the various hypothetical
examples, the FRP seems to be the key to
examining the accumulation process. This
key is seen as a consequence of various
assumptions. Unanswered is the question of
why there is not enough demand to keep prices
at levels such that the FRP does not fall.
Here, what am I assuming?
1. Capitalists make rational investments such
that in assigning prices simultaneously to inputs
and outputs the rate of profit calculated using
those prices does not fall.
2. As capitalists introduce changes in technique,
there is no reason for prices to change.
3. These unchanged prices are the "social values"
of the produced commodities.
4. If there is no change in prices as innovation
takes place, there is no FRP.
I suppose what I am getting at could be simply put.
Given that we are dropping Marx's assumption that
the value of money is constant, do we not need
one MEV computed under the assumption that commodities
are sold at their social values and another computed
under the assumption that they are sold at their
individual values? The task would then be to show
how and why the social value falls to the level
of the individual. Given that we accomplish this or,
at least, acknowledge that we are merely assuming it,
we would then be forced to address the lack of a
falling rate of profit as stated in above in 1.
John