[OPE-L:4800] Re: Re: rent and the working class

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 00:35:18 EST

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Allin Cottrell wrote:

> I agree with Rakesh's general point.  The price of inputs to the
> production of any given commodity could rise (or fall) for a
> host of contingent reasons having nothing to do with changes in
> the conditions of production or the labour-time it takes to
> produce them (e.g. short-run supply/demand issues).  Such
> changes will alter cost price.  Therefore on Fred's reading they
> will also change the value of the output commodity.  This seems
> theoretically unacceptable: _values_ would be affected by any
> and all factors that influence market prices.  Then what's
> happened to the idea that values are determined by the socially
> necessary labour-time required for a commodity's production?
> Allin Cottrell.

Allin, I argue that the quantities of money-capital that are taken as
given are long-run average prices.  It is assumed that the economy is in
long-run equilibrium (i.e. equal profit rates across industries) and that
prices are long-run average prices, i.e. prices of production.  Therefore,
these quantities of money-capital that are taken as given are not affected
by the deviations of market prices from prices of production.

I also argue that the money new value (the second component of the value
of commodities) is determined by the quantity of current labor (N = m Lc),
from which it follows that surplus-value is determined by the quantity of
surplus labor (S = m Ls).  It is in this sense that this theory is a LABOR
theory of value.  


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST