> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 12:10:25 UT
> From: "andrew kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
> Subject: FW: [OPE-L] Re: Historical, real and current costs
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Michael:
> "...let us remind ourselves that the context is a
> discussion about how to conceptualize the MELT. Then the
> appropriate intensity of labour is the average one - both cross-
> sectionally and inter-temporally."
Andrew:
> If intensity is averaged inter-temporally, then shouldnt productivity
> be averaged inter-temporally? If you say that it should be,
> then, if the value of the commodity is determined by the SNLT
> (which means that the labor is inter alia of average
> productivity, what can we conclude about the value of
> commodities? (Once you figure out the answer, youll see why I
> reject the notion that intensity or productivity is averaged
> inter-temporally...
We have the following 1997 capitalist cycle:
[January 1] [Jan 2 -- Dec 30] [December 31]
M-C ...P... C''-M''
a) On Jan. 1, 1997, a capitalist advances the monetary expression
of 500 hours as constant capital, buying 500 chunches which is
the whole production of the precedent period (1996). Thus, this
day, each chunche is worth 1 hour.
b) From Jan 2 to Dec 30, 1997, 200 hours of living labor are spent in
producing 1000 chunches, so that they are worth:
500 hr + 200 hr
------------------- = 0.7 hr/chunche
1000 chunches
c) On Dec. 31, 1997, the 1000 chunches are sold for the monetary
expression of 700 hours.
Does the "inter-temporal averaging" Mike *might* be suggesting imply
that the value of 1 chunche "in 1997" is calculated as the following
weighted *average*:
500 hr + 700 hr
----------------- = 0.8 hr/chunche?
1500 chunches
Or, a simple average (1+0.7)/2 = 0.85?
Mike, could you please explain what would be these inter-temporal
averaging processes you mention re the intensity of labor?
Alejandro Ramos