Alejandro:
> But if we analyse the substance of value, labor-time, it is
> difficult for me to understand. If in 1996 it was necessary
> 100 hours to produce 1 Kilo of coffee, and in 1997 this is
> reduced to 90 hours, I cannot see how the labor spent in
> 1996 (which is the REAL and IRREVERSIBLE SOCIAL cost of
> coffee in that year) can be retroactively modified,
> reduced.
> Michael:
> For Marx, value does not equal the cost of production,
> but the cost of reproduction. The reproduction costs
> have fallen, therefore so too does the value of the
> 1996 vintage coffee.
Alejandro again
Dear Michael:
I am aware that, for Marx, socially necessary labor time is
that necessary to reproduce the commodity.
My point is this:
Let us suppose that I am a merchant capitalist and, in 1996,
I bought 1 kilo of coffee. This year the MEL was $1/1 hour,
so that this kilo costed me 100 hours * $1/1 hour = $100 (a
little bit expensive!!).
In 1997, the labor time necessary to produce 1 kilo has been
reduced to 90 hours. Let us suppose that the MEL remains
the same. When I sell my stocked kilo of coffee in 1997, I
only pocket 90 hours * $1/1 hour = $90. What would then be
my profit rate as merchant capitalist? Do I gain or lose?
Alejandro Ramos M.
30.1.97
P.S. Michael and Jerry, note that I am performing the
"capitalist", which is not pleasant... I am not FEELING
good playing Mr Wolf.
BTW Jerry: You are really sounding like Shakespeare. What
about this:
Monsieur Le Capital = Macbeth
Madame La Terre = Lady Macbeth