**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4422] cost price again"**Previous message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**In reply to:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4440] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariancecondition"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4440] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariancecondition"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ajit, you have not understood what I have proposed. So only a quick response to point out where you have not understood me. > >___________________________ >Your first three equations will determine the relative prices of x, y, and the >third commodity z, and the rate of profits r. The set of equations can be solved for the absolute prices as well. > Before I mention the problems with >your equations (4) and (5), let me first suggest to you that your >equations are >pure numbers. You consistently fail to mention the units in which >the variables >are measured. One money dollar represents one hour of social labor time. The value of money is held constant. So the total value of 875 is simply $875. In the initial tableau, the input means of production thus cost $375 and the input wage goods $300. Etc. > As a matter of fact, the question of the unit of measure is the >crux of the transformation problem. So if you don't have the problem of unit >upper most in your mind, you cannot even begin to understand the nature of the >problem, let alone solving it. Now, my sense is that you would say, >the numbers >are given in money terms. Right. This is exactly how Marx proceeds. >Now, your world of equations have three commodities. >It appears that the first one is something like iron, second one is something >like wheat, and the third one could be gold. Nope it's a luxury good, let's say porcelain. I am not letting the money commodity into this; the value of money is held constant. One labor hour is represented by $1. That's it. I have provided you with a long quote from Grossmann justifying this theoretical choice. >So let us say, gold is the money >commodity in your world, Nope won't allow it. >so the values/prices of x and y are given in terms of >gold. In that case, your third equation turns out to be > >50x + 90y + r(50x + 90y) = 200 (3'). > >Now, the system of equations (1), (2), and (3') are in well defined units, and >they solve for x, y, and r. Given your unnecessary simple reproduction >constraint on the system, it must follow that: > >r(225x+90y)+r(100x+120y)+r(50x+90y) = 200. You just won't listen to what I am saying. The left hand is the sum of profits. I am saying that since the mass of surplus value is defined as total value minus cost price, the mass of surplus value can no longer on the right hand be the same 200 it was before cost prices were modified. The right hand is not 200--I was quite clear about this being the difference between me and Allin--but rather the equation which I have already provided you: 875-375x-300y (total value minus modified cost price=surplus value). I am NOT postulating the mass of surplus value (or rate of profit) as invariant since I think that's impossible as we modify cost prices given Marx's definition of surplus value as total value minus cost price. Of course if the sum of surplus value changes as a result of the modification of cost prices, so must the rate of profit which is now modified sum of surplus value/modified cost prices. Below you take r as invariant. But r, as well as the sum of surplus value, is an unknown in my equations. It has to be solved for, and r and the sum of surplus value can be solved in absolute terms! >Here by design, total surplus value will always be >equal to total profits. That's absolutely correct. I have written the set of transformation equations in such a way that Marx's two equalities not only both hold but also--it turns out to my surprise--are needed to determine the system. This is my point! The point is that with the two equalities,as I have them, they no longer overdetermine the system. You can be assured that I did not invent my equations 4 and 5 because I knew the system would not be overdetermined. I wrote equation 4 exactly as I understood Marx. That is, I read Marx defining surplus value as total value minus cost price, so since you and Bortkiewicz wanted to modify the cost price by having the inputs transformed as well, I then wrote the left hand of the equation 875-375x-300y because that would now represent the new surplus value as cost price is modified and then I wrote the right hand as the sum of the branch profits Because that it is exactly what I understand the second equality to be. My fourth equation has never been proposed before. But it is exactly how I understand Marx. I think we are agreed that any changing of the outward appearance of the input and output prices of a system should not change the total value/price which the commodity output embodies. So that gave me my fifth equation which expresses both the invariance of total value/price and the determination of total prices (the right hand) by the invariant total value (the left hand). 875=375x+300y+r(375x+300y). It turns out that my fourth and fifth equations do not overdetermine the system. So what I am saying to you, Ajit, is that when I wrote down the set of input transformation equations for the scheme which Allin provided me, I was left with those five equations. And they do provide a solution not only for x/y and r but x, y, and r. This system is determined in absolute terms. I of course believe that I am the first to have correctly written the input transformation equations in Marx's own terms. The innovation is in my fourth equation, and it simply follows from my understanding of how Marx defines surplus value and what the second equality means. I am not trying to be cute. I am following Marx to the letter. And that's how the equations turn out on my reading.. I would have been disappointed if equations 4 and 5 overdetermined the system. But they do not. > And if the gold sector is made of average organic >composition of capital, then total value will also be equal to total surplus >value. This is just one of those special cases. But my set of equations does not require any special assumptions about the organic composition of capital in the Div III, porcelain production. . Another virtue of equations is that no such assumptions are required. In fact the tableau Allin gives us is exactly the one Sweezy uses when he relaxes the special assumptions about Div III. So your objection is misplaced. > Mathematically, >your r has to be either known or unknown, they cannot be both at the >same time. Ajit, r is unknown in my set of equations. >In equation (4), on the right hand side you have r as an unknown variable, >whereas the left hand side 875 is derived by taking r = 8/27. That is not how the $875 is derived. $875 is simply the direct and indirect labor the commodity output represents. It is the value of the means of production+the direct labor embodied in the commodity output. This value cannot change simply by playing around with the outside price appearances of the system, which is what the transformation is about. r is not used to determine 875; in fact r is determined only by dividing that total value by cost price. After my transformation the sum of surplus value and r will not remain invariant. But the two equalities hold. In fact the two equalities are needed to solve the system to get a new sum of surplus value, rate of profit and prices of production. My equations then allow for a substantiation of Marx's intuition that if the cost prices are left unmodified, it is possible to go wrong... > So this is simply >illegitimate. Same with equation (5). Whether you like it or not, you have >presented a simultaneous equation system with three unknowns and >five equations. >If all your five equations are independent ones, then your system is >overdetermined (try solving for x, y, and r from your five >equations, which you >haven't done yet). Nope I really only have 4 equations. The fifth is a mathematical tautology (it is simply equation 3 and 4). > >On a general note: I would advise that a solution to the >transformation problem >does not lay in being cute by somehow showing that the two >invariance conditions >satisfy. Again, you have not understood me. I do not have two invariance conditions! Remember the slogan. All the best, Rakesh

**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4422] cost price again"**Previous message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**In reply to:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4420] Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariance condition"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4440] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariancecondition"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:4440] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 equalities, one invariancecondition"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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