A reply to Fred's OPE-L 4992. He wrote: "your interpretation explicitly abstracts from market prices. Even if changing market prices were another possible cause of changes in prices of production, this would not explain why your prices of production change." No Fred, this isn't so, and that's why the Chapter 6 evidence matters, as does your invention of an evil twin profit rate to immunize your interpretation against it. First, you confuse an interpretation with a specific illustration of the interpretation under particular circumstances. The TSSI does not abstract from market prices. Quite the contrary. I will be happy to provide references if you need them. Second, the specific illustration (in Kliman and McGlone's 1988 paper) does not abstract from market prices either. What we wrote, and what you quoted, is that it abstracts from market price *oscillations*. That is, as the CONTEXT in which the quote appears makes clear, we depicted only the movement of values and production prices in our periods 1 through 14. We did not depict the movement of market prices around the prices of production during that time-span. For instance, in period 1, prices of production are assumed to reign, and they are assumed to reign in period 2 as well. But between periods 1 and 2, i.e., in period 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. (keep in mind that the length of a period is arbitrary), market prices can deviate from prices of production. We chose not to depict such situations; that is all. There is, however, a different sense -- a sense quite pertinent to the present discussion -- in which we did not abstract from market prices. One way of putting this is that we did not abstract from a change in market prices *before* period 1 commences. Keep in mind that market prices are just prices at which things are actually bought and sold. Thus prices of production are particular market prices, and "value prices" are other particular market prices. Now, what we depicted was a situation in which, prior to period 1, the output prices were one set of market prices -- "value prices" -- and in period 1, the output prices were a different set of market prices -- production prices. Hence, market prices changed between period 0, let's call it, and period 1. Those changes in market prices caused the general rate of profit, values, and production prices to change and to keep changing. Marx nowhere wrote, to my knowledge, that the effects of the initial change in market prices all had to be immediate, that there couldn't be lagged effects. As Allin notes, that is all that is going on in the illustration in question. Ciao, Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Dept. of Social Sciences Pace University Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA phone: (914) 773-3968 fax: (914) 773-3951 Home: 60 W. 76th St. #4E New York, NY 10023 USA "The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical. It is the critique that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST