Re: (OPE-L) Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations

From: Alejandro Valle Baeza (valle@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX)
Date: Thu Sep 23 2004 - 03:23:48 EDT

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gerald A. Levy 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:00 PM
  Subject: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations

  Hi Jerry.

  Parys predicts discrepancies between labor values and production 
  prices using technical compositions of capital vertically integrated in 
  production-price terms.  Pary's two main arguments are: 
       a) A mathematical demonstration that technical composition of 
  capital vertically integrated in price always predicts correctly the 
  sense of deviations between labor values and production prices.

  I don't really understand this since  if the TCC is "vertically 
  integrated in price" then it is no longer the TCC.
  It is by analogy, the important fact in my view is that TCC in price predicts without doubt value price deviations. 
       b) A counterexample probing that the value composition of capital, the variable used by Marx ,fails in at least one case to predict sense of deviations between labor values and production prices.


  I don't understand this either: what is the difference between the 
  TCC "vertically integrated in price" (sic) and the VCC?  After 
  all,  since c, v, and s are all expressed thru the value-form, they 
  can be measured as money magnitudes.
  I should said TTC in value not VCC. TCC in price and value are different because prices are prices of production. 
  Parys proved that if the branch j has a technical composition of capital measured in production prices and vertically integrated θj is greater (smaller or equal) than of branch i; then the quotient price of production-value of the branch j will be greater than suchquotient in branch i. According to Parys, the technical composition θj vertically integrated, in production prices, is sufficient to know the direction of the value price deviations. 

  I am attaching an unpublished paper disussing this paper of Parys.

  My conclusion on it is that Parys is wrong despite his mathematics is right. This because there is another criteria for measuring value price closeness based on profit and surplus value distinction. The counterexample of Parys is useful to explain this. According to such counterxample the industry 1 has the largest positive price value deviation , i.e. production price value ratio is maximum;  but its TCC in value terms and its organic composition of capital are not maximus.  This ratio is another possibility for measuring price value deviations.  I proposed another criteria profit share relative to surplus value share.  The counterexample of Parys prove that both can be contradictory.  According to my criteria industry 1 is not the industry that obtain more surplus value in circulation than any other. According to this criteria of price value  closeness, ratios in value predict well and ratios in price do not.

  Back to Paul´s paper: in addition of his interesting development about commodity space as a Hilbert space could be interesting to analyze that in some circumstances larger price value deviation do not mean the same in relation to surplus value appropriation. 
  In solidarity, Alejandro

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 24 2004 - 00:00:04 EDT