Alejandro Ramos <email@example.com> said, on 10/26/00: >So, Marx did know in Vol. I that, as Rakesh says, commodities don't >exchange at value. Hence, I don't see your point. I was supporting Rakesh, not criticizing him, by citing evidence that Marx was clear on what he was assuming in Vol. 1 -- price-value equivalence. >I think the point here is if one want to make from these symplifing >assumptions the textual evidence for working out a self contained "value >model" from which presumably another self contained "price model" will be >later "derived" à la Bortkiewicz et al. Do you think this is what we >should do with these quotations? If we assume price-value equivalence, we can move onto other questions raised by Marx's understanding of the capitalist mode of production. I have not been convinced that much is learned, one way or another, by worrying about the transformation problem. In other words, in my view, there are much deeper problems to consider than this particular interest (almost obsession) of Marxist economists. =========== "Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/26/00: >It is undeniable that Marx assumed prices = values from Ch. 6 throughout >most (but not all) of Vol. I. What was at issue was whether he assumed >compositions of capital were equal, which is a different claim, and one >for which I've never seen evidence. Also, that he assumed prices = Interesting. Suppose I turn it around and ask, IF compositions are equal, do we have price-value equivalence (I'm hesitant to use your prices = values, because we have values measured in labor time, but I don't know what you have prices measured in)? This is a sufficiency question. >values does not imply that his results all depend on that assumption, or >that his definitions are applicable only when that assumption holds. I agree. Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST