[OPE-L:4026] Re: Re: Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 05:35:27 EDT

Just to clarify what I was saying in the previous message.

1. I am constraining the transforming of the inputs so that their 
total prices of production remain determined by the total value of 
those inputs as given in the first two tableaux.

2.I then assume that this period achieved a productivity increase 
from last period. I assumed 5%, 3% would have made the interperiodic 
change in unit prices
even less.

3. Finally I show that unit prices would have changed in small and 
reasonable ways  if we accept Marx's constraint.  That is, I showed 
that unit prices of the outputs at t+1  would differ from from the 
unit prices of the inputs at t in a constrained manner wholly 
consistent with reality.

4. I again declared that disallowing Marx from introducing time 
subscripts which are already implicit in Capital 3,ch9  to his 
transformation procedure is an unreasonable manuver; moreover, no 
other theory than a revolutionary critique of bourgeois society would 
be so easily ditched when all that is needed is an saving assumption 
which is realistic.

5. I do not  claim to have *determined* the unit input prices. I only 
show that there is a range within which they could have easily fallen 
which differs only slightly and reasonably from the output unit 
prices while maintaining the equality between the prices of 
production for the inputs and the value of those inputs as given in 
the the first two tableaux.

6. Your iteration breaks that the equality between the sum of the 
prices of production of the inputs and the value of those inputs. I 
argued that this equality has to be maintained; you cut me off in mid 
paragraph when I was laying out that constraint.

7. I argue  that there is nothing unreasonable in maintaining that 
equality because it only requires small and reasonable interperiodic 
changes in the unit prices.

7. If said equality is maintained--and there is nothing unreasonable 
in such a constraint--then total cost price as it appears in the 
original tableau cannot be changed by the transforming of the inputs; 
if total cost price remains the same, then the 2nd tableau proves 
entirely adequate for Marx's purposes: it demonstrates the two 
equalities, the value theoretic determination of r, and the 
resolution of the contradiction between the principle of the average 
rate of profit and the law of value. The problem which Marx set 
himself is solved.

8. None of this proves that law of value actually does govern 
bourgeois society in the way marx has laid out, i.e., in terms of the 
determination of the general rate of profit.  It only shows that it 
is a perfectly logical hypothesis which should be allowed to compete 
with rivals in its ability to explain the developmental dynamics of 

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST