From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2007 - 08:34:50 EDT
Just so that no misunderstanding is left hanging, let me take up your last poit first. To my comment: > "You also must have noticed that in your latest > "sequencial" determination, you did not start with a > given M." You reply: Implicitly, M was taken as given, because C and V were explicitly taken as given, and M = C + V, as I have said many times. I was trying to present a gvery brief summaryh of Marxfs logic of sequential determination, without having to repeat all the steps every time. _______________________ Your above statement is another proof of your consistent circular reasoning and not an outcome of brief as opposed to elaborate reasoning. Look at your own sequence of equations. Your (C+V) = M measure can appear only as the second equation and not the first. Bcause the second equation requres S, which does not require M but had to be derived prior to derivation of R, which requires M. This is a question of logic and not what you implicitly assume or not. Try to start with your second equation and see if your sequencial reasoning will work. Your three sequential equations are exactly the same as the well established "Sraffian" reading of Marx. But the Sraffians have argued that your equation (2) gives the incorrect measure of the rate of profits and thus an incorrect measure of the prices of production or your eq.(3). You simply cannot start with M unless you are prepared to be tripped at the very first step. __________________ Now to your another point. You say: > No, because the two definitions of Ln are not the > same. The Sraffian > interpretation of Marxfs definition of Ln is the > labor-time required > to produce the means of subsistence (Lms). My > interpretation of > Marxfs definition of Ln is the labor-time required > to produce a money > equivalent to the variable capital, i.e. equal to > the money wages paid > to workers (Lw = V / m). _______________________ So first m was defined as MELT, which apparently stands for 'money equivatent of labor time". So by definition if one knows m (and we are assuming that God knows it and had given its value to Marx and probably Marx passed it on to Fred)one can translate any data in labor-time units to monetary units by simply multiplying it by m. Now Fred tells me that he also likes to go from right to left on the same equation. So now, if you have any data given in money terms, you can divide it my m, and voila! you got your value of the variables in labor-time units. So you need not look at the production to get your labor-values of anything. If the price of a ton of iron happens to be $100 and Fred tells you that the value of m is equal to $5 = 1 hour of labor, then all you have to do is to divide 100/5 and declare the labor-value of 1 ton of iron to be 20 hours of labor. So now, with given value of m you can get all your labor-values by simply dividing the prices (or when it comes to aggregates, all aggragate monetary data) by m and get the labor-values. But again, as Fred should know, if you divide an equation on both sides by any constant (provided it is a real number and not zero or infinity)you get no more information than the original equation. You can keep going right to left and left to right on the same equation and declare that you don't walk in a circle. But the rest of the world knows that it means the same thing. I'm now quite tired of this thing and also I have to work on my seminar of the 4th of April. So if you still think that your reasoning has no problem, then well, good luck to you! Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT