[OPE-L:3951] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem

From: Patrick L. Mason (pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 15:18:20 EDT


You stopped your note just when it was getting interesting. What's the 
implication of Samuelson's paper and is/was he correct?

peace, patrick l mason

At 03:29 PM 10/4/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Note that the definition of value in vol 1 is done in abstraction from
>changes in technology over time. In vol 1 a change in technology
>changes values, but there is not systematic treatment of
>the effect of a continuous rate of change of technology on
>the definition of commodity values.
>It strikes me as illegitimate to try and reconcile prices of production
>computed on a temporal basis with value defined on a non temporal
>Once you deal with continuous rates of change of labour productivity
>then you are stepping outside the theoretical space on which the original
>theory of value was based. Samuelson attempted do deal with this
>problem of continuous change in labour productivity and its implication
>for labour values in his paper 'A new labour theory of value for rational
>planning through the use of the bourgeois  profit rate'
>Paul Cockshott
> > Rakesh wrote
> > This is not true. As I noted to Allin who did not reply, Marx is
> > already investigating in ch 9 why the prices of production in a
> > particular sphere are undergoing changes of magnitude (see capital 3,
> > p. 265ff. Vintage; see also p. 270-1 where marx refers to the rise of fall
> > of the portion of cost price which represents constant capital in a given
> > sphere of production; note also p.271-2 where Marx analyzes the impact of
> > rising productivity). So there is no reason for the stricture that the so
> > called transformation problem has to be solved on the assumption  of input
> > prices of production=output prices of production. Of course  if this
> > assumption is dropped as it should be for a temporal
> > sequential approach (and why can't an exercise in logic include time
> > subscripts), then there no longer need be a discrepancy between total
> > surplus value and total profit that has to be arbitrarily accounted
> > for by postulating revenue expenditures of exactly the right size. Of
> > course one can say that within a static framework such revenue
> > expenditure could account for the inequality between total surplus
> > value and total profit; that is, this can be offered as an escape
> > hatch if one confines herself for the sake of argument to a static
> > (or more accurately replicating) world in which input prices have to
> > be output prices.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST