[OPE-L:4871] Give us some NUMBERS, Fred! (was: rent and the working class)

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 11 2001 - 10:57:04 EST

Fred Moseley writes in OPE-L 4865:

"Kliman and McGlone's interpretation [i.e., the temporal
single-system interpretation] of Marx's "prices of production" is
erroneous.  According to their interpretation,
"prices of production" continue to change from period to period,
ANYWHERE IN THE ECONOMY!  (See for example, the 14 periods in
Andrew and Ted's numerical example in their first (1988)

Fred, just how do you think you know the changes in prices aren't
the result of productivity changes?  What is it that creates the
difference between input and output prices in the *initial*

It might well be a difference in productivity in period 1 as
against period 0, and all the changes in periods 2, 3, etc. are
part of the adjustment of prices in response to that productivity

Marx never said that productivity changes can't have an *ongoing*
influence on prices of production, did he?

BTW, as Eduardo has pointed out to me, it is just NOT true that
Marx's theory is that prices of production cannot change
independently of changes in productivity.

They change also, Marx says, due to changes in the general profit
rate.  H

e also tells us that the general profit rate changes in response
to changes in *market prices* -- whatever their cause.

Marx is exceedingly clear about the latter point.  See Ch. 6 of
_Capital_, Vol. III.

Hence, changes in market prices influence prices of production.

Also, I think it is really time for you to put up or shut up.

When you presented your argument, I pointed out immediately that
it is YOU as a physicalist/simultaneist who must conclude that the
productivity of labor can change without prices of production
changing, contrary to your claim that "prices of production change
if AND ONLY IF there is a change in the productivity of labor
somewhere in the economy."

You tried to evade my response in your usual manner, by claiming
that your "method" isn't the Sraffian "method."

But I couldn't care less about your method.

I care about your NUMBERS and their implications.

You keep trying to run away from having to produce any numbers.

Why might that be?

Well, you can run but you sure can't hide.

Here's an example in which productivity rises, for which I'd like
you to produce changes in the price of production:

There is a two-sector economy, in which workers live on air.

In sector 1, 4 bu. of seed corn and 2 units of living labor yield
5 bu. of corn output.

In sector 2, 4 bu. of corn and 2 units of living labor yield 5 bu.
of gold (the money commodity).

In the next period, labor productivity rises; in each sector, 1
unit of living labor (instead of 2) is required to produce a unit
of output.

Really, it is time you produced some NUMBERS instead of just a
string of unsupported assertions.

Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST