Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 11:42:24 EST

> Hi, Rakesh,
> I would first look at the general case, where fixed capital is present. In
> it, constant capital is the value of the stock of capital. As all values,
> it
> comes from labour, in this case unpaid labour extracted to workers in the
> process of production of the means of production. And as all values, it is
> measured by a certain quantity of money. [Note by the way that there is no
> stock of variable capital; I agree with Duménil in this point]
> If we look at the flow of constant capital, I think it is necessary to use
> replacement costs, not historical costs.

But. leaving aside the question of how and why money price mis-represents
value, why should replacement rather than historical costs be in the
denominator the profit rate?

If we take C(r) to be replacement costs and C(h) to be historical costs,

why shouldn't the profit rate be measured as

C(r)plus value added/C(h)plus v?

 Wouldn't that be the way to measure the actual expansion of capital in time?

I'm trying to understand your difference with Alejandro.

Yours truly, Rakesh

That is the value of this flow is
> the labour we need now to reproduce the basket of means of production that
> are being used up. As usual, this labour is expressed in a sum of money
> and
> needs to be measured by a quantity of money.
> Cheers,
>       Diego
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values
>> >
>>> Diego:
>>> I discuss this issue largely in the paper. For me, â?opriorâ?? must be
>>> understood not in chronological terms but in logical terms. I criticize
>>> Alejandro Ramos and the TSS for their â?ochronologicalâ??
>>> interpretation.
>>> This
>>> is why constant capital has to be computed at replacement costs, not
>>> historical cost, and in this sense it seems that we agree provided you
>>> say
>>> â?osequentialâ?? in this sense.
>> Hi Diego,
>> What do you mean by constant capital? The value of the used up means of
>> production as incorporated in the value of the produced commodity? How
>> is
>> that value determined? By the value of the constant capital you don't
>> mean
>> the value of the money required to purchase means of production at their
>> historical cost, no?  By the value of constant capital do you mean the
>> value of the money required to buy the used up means of production at
>> replacement costs?
>> Enjoying this exchange. Hope you can add a few lines of clarification.It
>> seems to me that there are many ways in which constant capital is in
>> fact
>> valued, that there may be no one right way. Depends on the question,
>> perhaps.
>> Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST