Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 12:36:48 EST

I accept Fred's and Alejandro's argument that the inputs are already
in the form
of market prices, givens which cannot be retrospectively transformed.
However, I have
further argued that the transformation problem is one of going from the prices
of inputs to the value of the used up means of production and the
rate of surplus value.
In other words, I have said that for one hundred years Marxist
criticism has got
Marx's admission of a mistake exactly ass backwards. However if one accepts
the traditional transformation problem I think Shaikh's and
Gouverneur's solution
is quite alright (that is, I would keep total value=total price and
the MEL constant in
the fixed point iteration), though I would said that with each iteration
the mass of surplus value changes since Marx defines surplus value as
total price minus total cost price (that is, M' minus M). With each
iteration the cost price changes so must the mass of surplus value.
This does no damage to the labor theory of value in that it is still
easy to interpret the iteration
as one in which all new value is the result of living labor alone,
though the mass of surplus
value may seem either larger or smaller than in the initial
situation. At any rate, the change
is only nominal.

>Hi Rakesh
>>  In other words, value as simple price is a magnitude of no real
>>  importance. Just as for the purposes of the pension system the so
>>  called real age is not important. In fact value as simple price is of
>>  much less importance that total value and total surplus value.
>How do you determine the value of money?

Drawing from Naples, I have argued money is unlike most reproducible
The average rate of profit tends not to achieved in this sector. And
the purchasing
power of the money commodity is given not by its price of production but by the
socially necessary labor time required to reproduce it.

However for most commodities this is not what happens. There is confusion
in our understanding of value. By value of a commodity do we mean
the amount of abstract labor time it represents or do we mean the amount
of abstract labor time it requires to produce a commodity. I argue
that value means the former, and that for most commodities its value
is given by the price of production multiplied by the value of money. This does
not discount the importance of labor time required for production but it makes
its influence mediated in a complex way.

Yours, Rakesh

>Do you think Marx was right to try and quantitatively match value
>accounting and price accounting in order to demonstrate that the law
>of value did not contradict the law of uniform profit?
>Of the three kinds of reaction to the TP I mentioned -- (i) deny a
>premiss, (ii) drop a price-value conservation claim, (iii) change
>Marx's value theory -- where would you situate your:
>>  In bourgeois society, the value of a commodity is its price of production
>>  multiplied by the value of money.
>As I said, I think this is the right direction to go. But there are
>obstacles in the way. How are you getting around these obstacles?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 00:00:02 EST