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

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 14:49:36 EST

Hi Rakesh

Thanks for explaining your point of view, one you've obviously thought
about a lot.

> 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.

We need a MELT to translate those into labour-values. How is it
defined in Fred and Alejandro's argument? (No need to answer if you
don't have the time -- although I am very interested).

> 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.

Assuming the aggregate inputs are: price of constant, P(c), variable,
P(v), and surplus (total profit) P(s).

OK. Given P(c),P(v),P(s) in price terms, according to your
interpretation, we want:
(i) value of constant capital, L(c),
(ii) ratio of total surplus-value to value of variable capital, L(s)/L(v).

Assume a MELT M, with units dollars per hour. How is it defined?

How are you proposing going from:
L(c) and L(s)/L(v)?

Again, you don't need to answer if you don't have the time, but I am
very interested.

Also, your explanation of why you think the traditional interpretation
of the TP is faulty was too compressed for me. If you're willing to
expand that'd be great. I'm interested in trying to understand which
category your interpretation falls into. It sounds like you might be
denying a premiss of the traditional TP.

As far as I understand it, Marx assumed a uniform rate of
surplus-value prior to the transformation, both per sector and over
the whole economy. After the transformation, there are non-uniform
rates of surplus-value in different sectors, because individual
capitals get a share of the total according to the size of total, not
variable, capital advanced. But the overall rate of surplus-value is
unchanged (rate of exploitation is constant). It doesn't seem to me
that Marx is using the transformation procedure to deduce the overall
rate of surplus-value. It's a given isn't it?

I note your mention of Shaikh's iterative solution. To keep things
short I've ignored it.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 29 2006 - 00:00:02 EST