2. In my last post, I reviewed several of Marx's statements under
discussion and showed that these statements were explicitly about multiple
periods, i.e. "a great deal of time" or "over prolonged periods of time".
Therefore, I concluded (once again) that Marx's statements are
contradicted by Andrew and Ted's prices of production.
3. In his last post John did not really disputed that these statements
apply to multiple periods of time. He even seems close at one point to
acknowledging that these statements are contradicted by Andrew and Ted's
prices of production, and he suggests a compromise in which Marx's prices
of production are long-run equilibrium prices and Andrew and Ted's
short-run equilibrium prices would be called "PRE prices of production".
I would be willing to accept this compromise; except for the name, this is
what I have been arguing.
4. However, John does not want to accept this compromise because John
thinks that long-run equilibrium prices are vacuous; i.e. they explain
nothing about the real world. If Marx's prices of production are indeed
long-run equilibrium prices, then Marx's prices of production would be
useless for any analysis of real capitalist economies. "Your critique of
Ted and Andrew becomes the dismissal of Marx."
5. I do not think that long-run equilibrium prices are vacuous. I think
they are useful analytical concepts, at a high level of abstraction.
Prices of production as long-run equilibrium prices are part of the
"general laws" of capitalism that Marx sought to explain in *Capital* (not
the deviations from these "general laws"; e.g. market prices or short-run
equilibrium prices). Prices of production are not actually observable
prices, but they are the "centers of gravity" around which actual
observable market prices fluctuate.
6. In any case, what I want to emphasize is that there are TWO SEPARATE
QUESTIONS HERE:
1. Are Marx's prices of production long-run equilibrium prices?
2. Are long-run equilibrium prices vacuous?
Whether or not long-run equilibrium prices are vacuous is A SEPARATE
QUESTION from whether or not Marx's prices of production long-run
equilibrium prices. It seems to me that the textual evidence provides a
fairly clear and unambiguous answer to the first question (unusually so
for textual evidence): that Marx's prices of production change are "center
of gravity" prices that change if and only if productivity or the real
wage changes, which logically implies that Marx's prices of production are
indeed long-run equilibrium prices. If long-run equilibrium prices do
indeed turn out to be vacuous, as John argues, then this will indeed be a
blow to Marx. I do not think this will turn out to be the case. But
whatever the answer to the second question turns out to be, I think the
answer to the first question is clear.
7. I am very interested in continuing the discussion of the second
question. Unfortunately, I am about to leave for two weeks of family
vacation (first to Oregon to visit family and then some hiking in the
Canadian Rockies), so I am going to have to call "time out" for me for a
few weeks. But I definitely look forward to continuing the discussion.
8. As I understand it, the most important remaining issues with respect
to question #2 are the following:
1. What exactly is meant by the "LONG RUN"?
Does it assume constant productivity?
2. Do these long-run equilibrium prices ACTUALLY EXIST?
3. How is RENT incorporated into these long-run equilibrium prices?
Especially absolute rent.
John may want to add to the list.
9. Finally, I want to think John very much for this very stimulating
discussion (for me at least). John and I have been discussing Marx's
theory together since 1972 (off and on of course), and I think this is one
of the best discussions we have had. I think we have made substantial
progress in articulating our interpretations and in understanding each
other's interpretation. This should make future discussions even more
productive. Thanks also to Paul C. for his helpful comments.
Comradely,
Fred