**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4547] reply to Fred (7)"**Previous message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4545] reply to Fred (5)"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4540] Re: What is Volume 1 about?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4547] reply to Fred (7)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > > >7. The third consequence of your interpretation listed above (that the >total surplus-value is not equal to the total profit) is very serious. It >contradicts the basic quantitative premise of all of Volume 3: that the >total amount of surplus-value is determined prior to its division into >individual parts and is not affected by the subsequent division into >parts. Fred, I have shown that in the iteration which I propose the mass of surplus value is always determined prior to its division into subsequent parts. The total mass of surplus value which is available for distribution is total value or price (its monetary expression) minus cost price. In the transformation set of equations which I propose, my fourth and eighth equations do have this determined first on the left hand side and then set the sum of branch profits equal to it on the right. Of course since we are using simultaneous framework for the purposes of internal critique, there is no real temporal sequence, but the equations which I propose can be read this way. the fourth equation defines surplus value as total value minus cost price and then determines the sum of the individual branch profits as equal to surplus value) (1) c1 + v1 +s1 = c1 + c2 + c3 (C) (2) c2 + v2 +s2 = v1 + v2 + v3 (V) (3) c3 + v3 +s3 = s1 + s2 + s3 (SVA) (4) (C + V + SVA) - (C + V) = s1 + s2 + S3 On Marx's assumption, the set of transformation equations should be (5) (1+r) c1x + v1y = Cx (6) (1+r) c2x + v2y = Vy (7) (1+r) c3x + v3y = r(Cx + Vy) (SVB) (8) (Cx + Vy + SVB) - (Cx + Vy) = r(c1x + v1y) + r(c2x + v2y) + r(c3x + v3y) The invariance condition of course is (9) (C + V + SVA) = (Cx + Vy + SVB), I must ask whether you have even noticed why I have argued that in a complete transformation the labor theory of value itself requires the mass of surplus value be modified in accordance with the left hand side of equation (8), instead of held invariant. Do you understand my objections to Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Meek that the mass of surplus value should not be assumed to be invariant? that this assumption leads to an adding up theory of price? That any modification of cost price consequent upon the transformation of the inputs has to lead in terms of Marxian theory to an opposite modification in the sum of surplus value as long as we are assuming that the total value and price of the commodity output remains the same throughout the transformation? That is, assume you are wrong and that you are stuck with Bortkiewicz-Sweezy's value denominated tableau and you have to transform the inputs and outputs both into the same prices of production. Do you think the mass of surplus value should remain the same in the unmodified and modified scheme? yours, rb

**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4547] reply to Fred (7)"**Previous message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4545] reply to Fred (5)"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4540] Re: What is Volume 1 about?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:4547] reply to Fred (7)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST
*