From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 12:11:15 EST
Re 7927: Hi, > > I dont see that the OCC can really be any different from the VCC > since it is measured in value terms. Perhaps both my own and Simon's post help to make this clear? (Though having read Jerry's latest, perhaps not!) > > The TCC is ill defined, there is no procedure by which one can > measure it. If one views it as a scalar > how can one say when it has changed? > If it is a vector one can say when it has changed, but the > ordering relation on TCCs becomes partial. > You are right that the TCC cannot properly be compared across time or place. Nevertheless one would want to be able to say that as capitalism progresses labour saving technology is the norm, which is equivalent to saying that the TCC rises. Marx uses the phrase 'mass' of means of production thus one could measure the vector of means of production by literally commensurating in terms of mass but this is crude at best. Simon suggested an index in terms of constant prices of the means of production. But this rather goes against the 'spirit' of Marx's TCC notion which is supposed to be independent of value altogether. Previously, I termed the OCC an 'index' of the TCC. However, in light of your point, I would want to modify this to call the OCC a 'value-assessment', or 'value-reflex' of the TCC (Alfredo uses these latter terms). This indicates that the OCC does more than merely reflect a pre-given and well-defined quantity. Jerry, I agree with Simon, except that I wouldn't use a price index at all when considering the TCC, as explained above. Many thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST