[OPE-L:3652] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: constant capital and variable capital

From: Duncan K. Foley (foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu)
Date: Sun Aug 13 2000 - 08:00:22 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Rakesh wrote, in part:

>I am not a defender of the NI because I don't understand it beyond what's
>in Duncan's Understanding Capital. I think the real arbitrary assumption is
>that input unit prices=output unit prices. Once we dispense with this
>assumption--and what is its justification--then there is nothing arbitrary
>about Marx's price theory. There is indeed a certain tautology in the way
>he theorizes the relationship between prices and values, but this seems to
>me intrinsic to conceptual development.

Just to set the record straight, there's no assumption in the NI that
input and output prices are equal. You don't need this to define
value added at market prices. When prices are changing you do need to
make some correction for the change in value of stocks, a point
Andrew, John, and I among others have discussed at considerable


Duncan K. Foley
Leo Model Professor
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
messages: (212)-229-5717
fax: (212)-229-5724
e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT