From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 13:15:13 EDT
At 11:11 -0800 12-03-2007, Ian Wright wrote: >>I do not understand very well. I guess the reference here is not >>Sraffa, right? (this model is very soon left aside). If the given >>data are the technique, direct labour coefficients and the real wage >>rate, then one can deduce the rate of profit, of course. But at the >>same time the prices. The fact that the former may be computed >>independently from the latter I do not think makes it possible to say >>that the rate of profit is known before prices. > >Riccardo, follow the logic a little more closely. You agree that the >rate of profit can be deduced from the technique, direct labour and >real wage rate. This means that the rate of profit is known before >prices. > >This is a small but crucial point. Add to your statement "But at the >same time the prices" the statement "But at the same time nonstandard >labour-values", which I have mentioned before on the list, and derive >in a recent paper. Such nonstandard labour-values are independent of >the price system and satisfy all Marx's identities, in particular the >value rate of profit is identical to the price rate of profit. >Nonstandard labour-values include the labour-value of money-capital as >a real cost. Standard labour-values ignore it. Standard labour-values >are appropriate for production without money-capital, e.g. simple >commodity production. You get a transformation problem when you >compare standard labour-values with a price equation that includes the >nominal cost of money-capital. I am not sure I follow your logic, since I should read your other posts and papers. I don't understand what is the meaning of "before" in your reasoning. To me, it all seem simultaneous: rate of profit, prices, 'values' of whatever kind. Given the data. Sorry, my fault. riccardo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT