[OPE-L:7423] [OPE-L:955] Re: Re: value and price

Ajit Sinha (sinha@cdedse.ernet.in)
07 May 99 11:52:18 IST (+0530)

Jerry continues...
> Re Ajit's [OPE-L:952]:
> > When you say "input prices", what
> > are they? Aren't you defining your "input price" at a point in
> > time--that is the point of time when inputs were bought.

> Jerry:
> Why must all of the inputs be purchased at a single moment in
> time? Why
> can't the purchasing of inputs, so long as it occurs before the
> start of a
> production period, be staggered in time?
Who said that all the inputs must be bought at the same time etc.?
It is you who said that there was something called input prices and
output prices and they differed from each other due to lapse of
time between the two. Now, you are saing that there is lapse of
time for "input prices" itself, so you don't have *an* input price
for a commodity but several. This should create serious problem for
your own formulation and bring to you the problem with your
understanding of the concept of prices. As far as my position is
concerned, it creates absolutely no problem. Price is defined only
for a point in time. Whether the commodity is bought to be used as
input or whatever is not even the concern for the definition of
price. In a well defined "market" one price prevails for a
commodity at a given point of time. And that's all there is to this
problem. Once we have defined what prices are, then we proceed to
how these prices are determined.
> Jerry:
> I think what you are assuming is that the time when one period
> ends is the
> exact time that another period begins. In that instant, I gather
> that you
> are assuming that all of the commodity output is sold and all
> commodity
> inputs are purchased. Why make this assumption?
I'm not making any such assumption. All I'm saying is that at any
point in time a certain exchange ratio between commodities exists
(and so a certain exchange ratio between money and a commodity),
and that's what prices are for that point of time.
> Jerry:
> (btw, if we say, with Marx, that the period of time transporting
> the
> commodity output to the market is included in the period of
> production,
> then what about the period of time that it takes to transport
> inputs --
> e.g. elements of constant fixed capital -- following sale to the
> site of
> production?).
This has very little to do with the problem at hand. It is only to
do with which space is defined as a "market". Different spaces can
be different markets, where movement from one market space to
another market space becomes part of production cost in the second
> Jerry:
> One should also remember (when we discuss the side issue of
> Marx's
> theory), that a temporal analysis was explicitly included in his
> presentation of "The Process of Circulation of Capital" (Volume
> 2) --
> the drafts of which were authored after the drafts for what
> became Vol. 3
> but which is *logically prior* to the analysis in Volume 3. Thus,
> before
> we even get to the level of abstraction associated with Vol 3, we
> have
> already incorporated into our analysis an examination of
> circulation,
> including the explicit discussion of circulation time. How can
> circulation
> take time in Vol 2 but only be defined for a single moment in
> time at a
> more concrete level of abstraction?
Who said circulation does not take time. All one is saying is that
price is defined only for a given point in time. Even Ricardo had
taken care of this issue. Remember Rakesh's quotation from Ricardo,
which Boomeranged on him? Let's suppose a commodity is produced and
is unsold for sometime, in the meanwhile the technology changes and
the price of such commodties fall. What happens to the old
commodity? Its price falls too. Why? Because there can be only
one price of a type of commodity in one market at a given point in
> I had written:
> > Similarly
> > for your "output prices". So both your "input prices" and
> "output
> > prices" are defined for only a point in time.

> Jerry:
> See above comments.
Now you see my above comments
> Jerry:
> <snip>
> > The question we are discussing is whether a theory of price can
> > entertain time dimension or not. So let us keep to that.
> As you wish. For that reason, I am only responding now to that
> section of
> your post which focuses on that issue.
Okay! Cheers, ajit sinha
> In solidarity, Jerry