In reply to OPE-L 5041. Fred, I agree that we are making some progress. You write: "I stand corrected about the real wage. I can see now that a given real wage, along with the given technical conditions, uniquely determine the rate of profit." Good statement! What the second sentence means is that -- once input and output prices are constrained to be equal -- there exists one and only one uniform profit rate that corresponds to a particular ("given") set of real wage and technical coefficients. Since you, like the Sraffians and other physicalists, constrain input and output prices to be equal, you have the same uniform profit rate when you have the same set of real wage and technical coefficients. This contradicts what you had earlier maintained. But then your post slips into error, because it confuses and conflates two meanings of the word "given." In the above passage, "given" means "particular." But you then employ it to mean something quite different -- "taken as an initial datum." For instance: "So whether or not technical conditions uniquely determine the rate of profit depends on whether the real wage or the money wage is taken as given along with the technical conditions." You cannot validly move from the first passage to the second, precisely because the meaning of "given" has changed. Moreover, this second statement is NOT correct. As I pointed out, what is "given" (an initial datum) is not relevant. You could have assumed, as an *initial datum*, the same money wage rate that Steedman obtains as a *result* when he takes the real wage rate as his initial datum. You would then have gotten the same relative prices and profit rate as he did. Check it out. You'll see that this is the case. So you can go from the money wage and get the real wage, or vice-versa. Whichever you do, if your real wage (either specified as an initial datum or derived as a result) is the same as Steedman's, and if all your other physical quantities are the same as Steedman's, then your profit rate and relative prices will be the same as Steedman's. It is thus not true that technical change in luxury industries will alter your general profit rate. As long as you are dealing with the SAME ECONOMY in physical terms -- same real wage (either taken as initial datum or derived) and same technical coefficients -- as he is, your profit rate will be the same as his is. His profit rate can't change in response to changes in productivity in luxury industries, so neither can yours. The following is possible. You and Steedman begin from the same economy. You have the same profit rate. Then you introduce the same change in luxury goods' technical coefficients into your economy and his, but you allow the real wage rate to vary in your economy but not his. Then you'll get a different profit rate from his. But the reason will NOT be that luxury productivity affects your economy. The reason will be that your real wage rate has changed. The comparison of your profit rate with Steedman's won't be valid, because you'll be comparing profit rates in two different economies. It is obvious, but meaningless, that two economies can have different profit rates. You need to get different profit rates for the SAME economy as Steedman's. And that means that all of your technical and real wage coefficients must be the same. And since, as we know, if they are all the same, then your profit rates must be the same, you will not be able to get what you need to get. Your interpretation contradicts Marx's theory. See you soon. 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 - 14:01:40 EST