Andrew wrote in ope-l 3525:
>I did not understand the following: "I would prefer to say that V is the
>value of labour-power per hour of labour hired multiplied by the number of
>hours of labour-power hired. When V is multiplied by the value of money it is
>then the total wage bill. But this is a different conception of the monetary
>expression of value, the inverse of the value of money. I think it is defined
>by Andrew's equation above. I think that Andrew defines it differently."
>Could you explain this please, Simon?
>
In the Dumenil-Foley approach, the ratio of labour-value-added (LVA) to
money-value-added (MVA) is the value of money (VM), and its inverse is the
monetary expression of value. This is all in value added terms; it is not
the ratio of total value to total price, which is in gross rather than net
terms. It is this latter to which I think (but am not sure) that Andrew is
more sympathetic.
Also, the value of labour-power per hour of labour-power hired (VLP) is the
wage rate per hour (w) multiplied by VM. So
VLP = wVM
Multiply both sides by L. On the left hand side interpret L as the number of
hours of labour-power hired, and on the right hand side as the number of
hours of labour worked, which needs a strong underlying assumption.
Then VLP.L = wL.VM where wL is total wages W. So
VLP.L = W.VM
Hence total wages multiplied by the value of money is total variable capital.
Unfortunately, when I wrote
When V is multiplied by the value of money it is then the total wage bill
I should have written
When V is multiplied by the monetary expression of value it is then the
total wage bill.
Does that answer your query?
Simon
Dept of Economics,
Queen Mary and Westfield College,
Mile End Road,
London E1 4NS,
UK
Telephone: 0171-975-5089
Fax: 0181-983-3580