On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, andrew kliman wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 01:04:33 UT
> From: andrew kliman <Andrew_Kliman@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject[OPE-L:5741] : RE: Question about NIPA
>
>
> In answer to Fred's question about how I happened upon the problem: it's not
> that I'm doing any study or anything at the moment. Rather, I've just taught
> this stuff for the umpteenth time, and I have an interest in it because I keep
> wondering about these claims that Marx's transformation (Ch. 9, Vol. III,
> *Capital*) is guilty of double-counting. So sitting down and figuring it all
> out has been a "back-burner" project for a while. Since I knew that Iv + Is >
> IIc, and since I understood "final" to mean (basically) the output of Dept.
> II, I had long suspected that the NIPA were wrong because they underestimated
> value added. I was wrong about that.
I think Alejandro R. has answered this "new solution" argument
convincingly in his paper in Freeman and Carchedi (eds.). Ale shows that
Marx's one very brief discussion of "double counting" has nothing to do
with the NIPA's prohibition against the double counting of intermediate
goods. What Marx was talking about in this passage is the double counting
of PROFIT, not the double counting of CONSTANT CAPITAL, nor the
distinction between gross price and net price. I have elaborated on this
point in the latest version of my "sympathetic critique" of the new
solution paper, which I will present at the ASSA meetings (and would be
happy to send anyone a copy who is interested).
Comradely,
Fred