On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Duncan K. Foley wrote:
> A comment on Andrew's OPE-L:5514:
>
>
> Andrew remarks:
>
> ..
> >
> >The data lead to an unambiguous answer: yes, he did. MAD's of 20-27 0mply
> >that the amount of value that is redistributed across sectors and across
> >countries is not negligible. In other words, it is illegitimate to conclude
> >that the factors which cause redistribution of value are unimportant in
> >accounting for ("explaining") observed price magnitudes.
>
> I'm intrigued by the idea of measuring the price/value deviation by the
> amount of surplus value actually redistributed across sectors. This is on
> the trail of an economically meaningful measure of the dispersion, which,
> as I said in an earlier post, seems very desirable in this debate.
1. W. Parys proved that value price deviations (measured by price value
ratio pi/vi) can be predicted by organic composition of capital vertically
integrated in price terms. pi/vi > pj/vj means that price of industry i
is far way form value than price of industry j.
2. He used an counterexample to prove that organic composition of capital in
labor values fails to predict value price deviations: Acording to
Parys Marx is wrong on this.
3. With such counterexample, I found that if apropiation of surplues is
used insted pi/vi as a criteria of distance, the conclusion will be
reversed: Parys is wrong and Marx is right.
My proposed criteria is:
If si/gi > sj/gj then price in industry i is far way than industry j
where
si is the share of industry i in total surplus
gi is the share of industry i in total profit.
Hence, both criteria may be contradictory is some circumstances.
I wrote a paper on this (it is in refering process), I cand send it by
request.
My preliminar conclusion is:
Andrew and Duncan pointed out the importance of redistribution of surplus
value among sectors. I agree with them. The correspondence between values
and prices can be analyzed with redistribution of surplues value with
amazing results.
Un saludo
Alejandro Valle