On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chai-on Lee wrote: > Because the v and the s are just two partitions of a single > entity produced by the direct labor, I think, the two parts > should be valued in the same terms. I agree that one shouldn't mix units of measurement. I don't think I was doing so, though perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. In all the tables after I said "We continue the iteration..." I conceive of *all* the c, v and s figures as being expressed in prices of production. The v figure I calculate "drifts" away from the original v in value terms because I'm revaluing the wage-goods at prices of production. The aggregate s figure stays fixed at 200, not because it is expressed (inconsistently) in value terms, but because, in the context of my discussion with Rakesh, I'm imposing Marx's postulate that total profit remains equal to the original total surplus value throughout. I'm imposing the constraint that, however prices behave under the transformation, they must produce the result that the total profit (expressed in prices of production) does not deviate from 200. An alternative would be to impose the constraint that the total of prices does not deviate from the original total of values (875 in the example). If this is followed out, total profit can't remain equal to the original total surplus value. The stabilized table using the latter approach is: c v profit price pvratio I 252.00 84.00 84.00 420.00 1.1200 II 112.00 112.00 56.00 280.00 0.9333 III 56.00 84.00 35.00 175.00 0.8750 Tot. 420.00 280.00 175.00 875.00 1.0000 where total profit = 175 < total surplus value. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST