# [OPE-L:4038] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: transforming the inputs (was no subject)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 17:47:48 EDT

```Re Allin's 4037

>
>No, that's a totally gratuitous complication.  There's no
>increase in productivity.  The same hours of labour are
>performed each "period", producing the same physical
>outputs.  (The actual quantities of the outputs are
>immaterial.)

Gratuitous, you may say, but you certainly haven't objected to it on
grounds of realism! Let's just see where it takes us.

>
>If we can't work this out on the simplifying assumption of no
>tecnical change, there's little hope of working it out with
>ongoing technical change superimposed.

Well, let's see....

>  > >There's a problem though.  The iteration has stabilized (there's
>>  >no further tendency for the numbers to change when the algorithm
>>  >above is re-applied), but we can't give the table a coherent
>>  >economic interpretation.  Try cross-referencing the entries in
>>  >the "price" column and the column totals for c and v.
>>  >
>>  >Dept I has an aggregate price of output of 420.00, yet the
>>  >purchases of its output come to only 405.00.
>>
>>  No, no! The \$405 represents the money sum invested to buy
>>  means of production as inputs at prices of production (t);
>>  the \$420 represents the money sum which is needed to buy *a
>>  greater physical quantity of means of production* as outputs
>>  at their prices of production (t+1).
>
>
>  round: 46
>	  c	  v   profit    price   pvratio
>    I  243.00   81.00   96.00   420.00   1.1200
>   II  108.00  108.00   64.00   280.00   0.9333
>  III   54.00   81.00   40.00   175.00   0.8750
>Tot.  405.00  270.00  200.00   875.00   1.0000
>
>On the interpretation you're proposing, how are you going to
>write the next table?  You'll have to put 420.00 at the foot of
>the "c" column and 280.00 at the foot of the "v" column as these
>"greater quantities" of output are put to use.

Correct.

>   If you write 200
>for aggregate profit, you've then got an aggregate price of 900,
>not equal to total value.

Why would I write 200 for aggregate profit for the next period?
Instead maintain r as 1.3, then aggregate value or price in the next
period is 910, profit or sv is 210. It would be unreasonable for it
not to increase since more labor time will now be embodied in the
final product.

For we now have 300 wage goods in physical units, suppose that each
ten buys a working day. So we have 30 full time workers.

In the previous period we had  286 wage goods in physical units, so
only 29 full time workers.

A working day produces roughly the same total value in both
periods--30 (30/910; 29/875). the rate of exploitation rises
slightly. 29 workers produced \$200 profit, now 30 workers produce
\$210 in profit.  Again, no unreasonable changes. Actually the kind of
change which should be a mark in favor of Marx's method!

The introduction of time subscripts or the treatment of the
transformation as one period in a realistic sequence (Carchedi)
renders Marx's value theory logical enough that it can be tested
against reality. Is this really something you want to fight against?

All the best, Rakesh

ps, I am dropping a lot of objections to which I shall return. I
haven't checked
the numbers because I have to go just now. But I think the point is clear.
```

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