[OPE-L:7703] Emendation to 7693

From: Gil Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 13:13:30 EDT


My post 7693 was written in haste, and as a result I got ahead of 
myself.  The last line of the post should instead read:  "So far as I can 
see, one cannot simultaneously and coherently maintain these assumptions 
and the statements you make here.  What am I missing?"

To restate the main points succinctly:

I don't yet see how it is possible to assert M, C, V, m and L as 
independent exogenously given magnitudes under the analytical conditions 
established by Marx in K.I., and thus how it is possible to assert that 
total prices P and aggregate surplus value S are "yielded" as dependent 
magnitudes by these parameters.  Specifically, so far as I can see, given 
the magnitude of M, the data required to determine individual commodity 
labor values, and the assumption that all commodities exchange at their 
respective values, then m, C, V, L, P, and S are already completely 
determined.  Again as I understand what Marx wrote, to assert otherwise 
suggests either that labor values are not in fact determined by socially 
necessary labor time, or that C is not determined by average input 
requirements, constant capital input prices (assumed by Marx to be 
proportional to respective commodity values), and total output; or that V 
is not determined by average labor input requirements, the wage rate 
(assumed by Marx to be proportional to the value of labor power), and total 
output; or that the total levels of C and V (and thus output and L) that 
can be financed are independent of the initial quantity of money capital 
advanced; or something else that at this point appears to be equally 
puzzling and contrary to Marx's formulations.

As a separate comment, I don't yet see how m is defined in the case of fiat 
money, since in that scenario the value of money is presumably equal to 0, 
and thus the inverse of the value of money is undefined.

As a reflection of the above, it's not clear to me how the Sraffian 
framework is *fundamentally* different from Marx's or yours; rather it just 
makes certain necessary relationships explicit where Marx often leaves them 
implicit, without evidently (at least to me) denying that they must hold.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT