[OPE-L:3986] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem

From: clyder (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2000 - 05:23:19 EDT

My view is that Samuelsons paper is formally correct but that
in its proposed field of application it makes a couple of illicit
ideological equations.

I enclose a paper of which about 1 third is devoted to discussing samuelsons

Paul Cockshott
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick L. Mason <pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:18 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:3951] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem

> Paul:
> 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
> >basis.
> >
> >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
> >paul@cockshott.com
> > > 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
> > > of the portion of cost price which represents constant capital in a
> > > sphere of production; note also p.271-2 where Marx analyzes the impact
> > > rising productivity). So there is no reason for the stricture that the
> > > called transformation problem has to be solved on the assumption  of
> > > 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