On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > I argue that Marx sets a constraint to the transforming of > the inputs--that the sum of their (transformed) prices of > production should equal their total value just as the total > value of the outputs equals the sum of their prices of > production.... OK, let's try it. I show below my iteration, revised so as to satisfy the condition you cite. Value table (same as before): c v s value I 225.00 90.00 60.00 375.00 II 100.00 120.00 80.00 300.00 III 50.00 90.00 60.00 200.00 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 Marx's transformation (same as before): c v s price pvratio I 225.00 90.00 93.33 408.33 1.0889 II 100.00 120.00 65.19 285.19 0.9506 III 50.00 90.00 41.48 181.48 0.9074 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 1.0000 We now continue the iteration... (1) Take the price-to-value ratio for each Department, and use it to revalue the inputs. E.g. the pvratio for Dept I above is 1.0889, and doing 1.0889 * 225.00 gives 245.00 for the price of production of constant capital used in Dept I. (1A) [new] The sum of c+v computed in this manner doesn't equal the original total c+v (= 675.00). To preserve equality in this regard we rescale the new c and v figures: each one is multiplied by the same factor such that the total comes to 675.00. (2) Calculate output price for each Dept as revalued c plus revalued v plus an aliquot share of total profit, which is presumed to be the same as total surplus value, that is, 200 (as before). round: 1 c v profit price pvratio I 238.46 83.27 95.33 417.06 1.1121 II 105.98 111.03 64.30 281.31 0.9377 III 52.99 83.27 40.37 176.64 0.8832 Tot. 397.43 277.57 200.00 875.00 1.0000 round: 2 c v profit price pvratio I 241.86 81.57 95.83 419.26 1.1180 II 107.49 108.76 64.07 280.33 0.9344 III 53.75 81.57 40.09 175.41 0.8770 Tot. 403.10 271.90 200.00 875.00 1.0000 round: 3 c v profit price pvratio I 242.72 81.14 95.96 419.82 1.1195 II 107.87 108.19 64.02 280.08 0.9336 III 53.94 81.14 40.02 175.10 0.8755 Tot. 404.53 270.47 200.00 875.00 1.0000 ... round: n c v profit price pvratio I 243.00 81.00 96.00 420.00 1.1200 II 108.00 108.00 64.00 280.00 0.9333 III 54.00 81.00 40.00 175.00 0.8750 Tot. 405.00 270.00 200.00 875.00 1.0000 Things now look good: total profit = total surplus value = 200, and total price = total value = 875.00. Total cost-price in prices of production = total cost-price in value terms = 675.00. The aggregate pvratio = 1.00. There's a problem though. The iteration has stabilized (there's no further tendency for the numbers to change when the algorithm above is re-applied), but we can't give the table a coherent economic interpretation. Try cross-referencing the entries in the "price" column and the column totals for c and v. Dept I has an aggregate price of output of 420.00, yet the purchases of its output come to only 405.00. Dept II is producing output to the monetary value of 280.00, yet the purchases of wage-goods amount to only 270.00. Profit is appears to be "equalized", but only on the impossible assumption that the price realized by the sellers differs from that paid by the buyers. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST