From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 03:47:35 EST
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 16:07 -0500, Jerry Levy wrote: > >> There is much talk about value determination (and determination of >> PoP) but what about the determination of market prices? Some times >> Marxists simply revert to saying that individual market prices are >> determined by S and D. But, isn't there are a _class_ analysis that we >> can bring to an examination of the determination of market prices? >> Don't we have something more and different to say about market >> price determination than what has been said by mainstream economists? >> Don't we need some 'microeconomic' theory of market price >> determination rather than only a aggregate perspective? >> >> In solidarity, Jerry >> > > We don't need a theory of market price determination or of value > determination. There can be no ex ante determination of value any more > than there can be an ex ante determination of market prices. > In my opinion, values and market prices determine each other mutually. Values are created by labour but the value of a commodity includes the MARKET price of the inputs. As Rakesh said in his last message, Marx has been misread also in this point. In <http://www.countdownnet.info/archivio/teoria/521.doc> I argue that the inputs have to be valued at market prices (m), not at values (w) or production prices (p)--I thus disagree with Alejandro Ramos and Fred Moseley too. In Capital I and II, Marx is assuming that m = w, and in Capital III, that m = p, but this is only the first assumption in analysis. As a general theory it should be assumed that m = m, different from both w and p. One can find in Marx's texts a fondation for this. The reason is that he is (and we should be) interested in the process of creation of NEW values, and he says explicitly that for this we can and must abstract from the values that come from other places, like in the case of the chemist: <<The circumstance, however, that retorts and other vessels, are necessary to a chemical process, does not compel the chemist to notice them in the result of his analysis. If we look at the means of production, in their relation to the creation of value, and to the variation in the quantity of value, apart from anything else, they appear simply as the material in which labour-power, the value-creator, incorporates itself. Neither the nature, nor the value of this material is of any importance. The only requisite is that there be a sufficient supply to absorb the labour expended in the process of production. That supply once given, the material may rise or fall in value, or even be, as land and the sea, without any value in itself; but this will have no influence on the creation of value or on the variation in the quantity of value.>> I show in the paper that if we assume this, it is possible to keep all Marx's equalities: total prices = total values, total profitts = total surplus value, one single rate of profit and so on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST