**Next message:**riccardo bellofiore: "[OPE-L:4419] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Previous message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4417] Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**In reply to:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4417] Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> >Rakesh, I think you have found the right vocation for yourself >finally! Now, my >advise would be to put all your energy into t-shirt business. All the best! >Cheers, ajit sinha Glad you're back, Ajit. Truly. My joke was made at the end of the argument. Your joke is your argument. Remember you said that the two equalities overdetermine the system. I am saying that this is not true. We can have total value=total price and mass of surplus value=sum of profits as long as surplus value is defined,as Marx explicitly does, as total value minus cost price (instead of value of inputs) which allows for the modification of the latter to change the mass of surplus value. The two equalities do not then overdetermine the system of transformation equations. I am the first to argue that the problem of overdetermination disappears once we use Marx's definition of surplus value. So I can understand why you may not have got the point. To see this, I'll have to copy this again: _______________________ The initial value table: c v s value I 225.00 90.00 60.00 375.00 II 100.00 120.00 80.00 300.00 III 50.00 90.00 60.00 200.00 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 Marx's first-step transformation takes the given total s and distributes it in proportion to (c+v). Thus: c v profit price pvratio I 225.00 90.00 93.33 408.33 1.0889 II 100.00 120.00 65.19 285.19 0.9506 III 50.00 90.00 41.48 181.48 0.9074 Tot. 375.00 300.00 200.00 875.00 1.0000 _________________ I propose these input transformation equations in which total value/price is invariant from the original tableau (equation 5) and the sum of surplus value equals (determines) the sum of profits (equation 4). (1) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x (2) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y (3) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+120y)+r(50x+90y) (4) 875-(225x+100x+50x+90y+120y+90y)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) (5) 875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) Allin proposes that the transformation should keep the mass of surplus value invariant even as cost prices are modified : (6) 225x+90y+r(225x+90y)=225x+100x+50x (7) 100x+120y+r(100x+120y)=90y+120y+90y (8) 50x+90y+r(50x+90y)=875-375-300 (200) (9) 875-375-300 (200)=r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) (10)875=375x+300y+r(225x+90y)+r(100x+90y)+r(50x+90y) My set of equations has a determinate solution for x,y and r; this much you will have to grant. Now tell me why my equation 4 is the incorrect expression for mass of surplus value=sum of profits. I have responded to Allin's criticism. What's yours? It would be truly appreciated. All the best, Rakesh

**Next message:**riccardo bellofiore: "[OPE-L:4419] Re: what is Volume 1 about?"**Previous message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4417] Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**In reply to:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4417] Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST
*