Alejandro R wrote in [OPE-L:4078]:
> I think that your point is this: In investement decisions,
> cost price is calculated by means of prices in t. The fact
> that prices will change in t+1 does not affect the PRESENT
> cost price, which is the amount of money-value which
> capitalists actually advance TODAY. The "opportunity cost"
> regarding a financial investment is calculated by means of
> the PRESENT cost price, not by means of an eventual future
> cost price higher or lower than that of today.
Well, I thought we were discussing the equalization of profit rates
[see Andrew K's #4866]. However, _if_ you are going to define cost-price
as the "amount of money-value which capitalists ***actually*** advance
***TODAY***" (additional emphasis added, JL), then I think that the rest
of what you write above is wrong.
If the prices of new machinery are expected to drop significantly in time
t + 1, doesn't that then affect the amount of money that capitalists
advance _today_ for constant fixed capital? There can, as well, be
significant changes in the price of elements of constant circulating
capital _during_ period t which will affect the actual amount of money
advanced for circulating capital _prior to the beginning_ of period t
(but after the close of period t-1). For instance, if the price
of oil and gas is expected to increase in period t, doesn't that affect
the amount of money advanced for oil at the beginning of the period?
Furthermore, there can be changes in wages during the period which might
be anticipated by capitalists which could also affect the amount of
money advanced for v at the beginning of period t. Moreover, anticipated
changes in the rate of interest could affect the amount of money capital
actually advanced within any given time period.
Regardless of the issue associated with the transfer of value,
capitalists can and do anticipate changes in the price of the elements of
cost price and this then can alter the amount of money capital advanced
at the beginning of any period. Is this a theoretical problem associated
with the equalization of profit rates in Marx? No, I don't think so given
the "level of abstraction" (pace Andrew K) of this subject. Yet, when we
start talking about the amount of money-capital "actually" advanced, then
they become issues.
In solidarity, Jerry