**From:** Paul C (*clyder@GN.APC.ORG*)

**Date:** Thu Sep 23 2004 - 17:02:48 EDT

**Next message:**Ian Wright: "Re: Seminar: HILBERT SPACE MODELS COMMODITY EXCHANGES by Paul Cockshott"**Previous message:**dlaibman@JJAY.CUNY.EDU: "Fwd: HELP!!!"**In reply to:**Alejandro Valle Baeza: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations"**Next in thread:**Paul C: "Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Alejandro Valle Baeza wrote: > * > * > > *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 θ_j 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 I am attaching an unpublished paper disussing this paper of Parys.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. > > * > * * > It seems that Parrys paper is purely theoretical and assumes what has to be proved - that prices actually correspond fully to profit rate equalising production prices rather than to values. If the vector of market prices is between the vectors of production prices and of labour values ( or at least the complex Hilbert space projections of these vectors are ) then I doubt that his maths will hold up.

**Next message:**Ian Wright: "Re: Seminar: HILBERT SPACE MODELS COMMODITY EXCHANGES by Paul Cockshott"**Previous message:**dlaibman@JJAY.CUNY.EDU: "Fwd: HELP!!!"**In reply to:**Alejandro Valle Baeza: "Re: (OPE-L) Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations"**Next in thread:**Paul C: "Re: Seminar: Value redundancy and price value deviations"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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