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

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 16:46:42 EST


--- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote:

> Hi, Ajit,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> D:
>
> > That is quite a different thing from what you
> said.
> _____________________
> Ajit:
>
>
>
> Not really. A "given market" takes care of all what
> you are saying. In any case, given your averages,
> the
> question still remains on what basis you say that if
> a
> jeans is sold for $100, then its "market value" is
> 100
> hours of labor? That was the question.
> __________________
>
>
>
> Diego:
>
> In the last instance, the answer is that it is
> already proven that all new
> value is created by labour alone. That merit
> corresponds to Marx.
________________________
Proven? No! you couldn't mean that.
______________________
 Let's see.
> The argument is: If a and b are true, then c is
> true. And c is: "only labour
> creates value".
>
>
>
> a) We start from the principle of exchange of
> equivalents. Then M = C and C'
> = M' in the scheme M - C .P. C' - M'. Therefore,
> value is created in ".P.".
________________________
Let's say M = 500$ and C = 50 tons of iron. How is M =
C? What you want to say is, Pc. C = M, so you already
have introduced price of C. Similarly, when you say M'
= C' is nonsense. What you must mean is M' = Pc.C'.
Now it is also not clear whether your context is a
factory, an industry or the whole macroeconomy and
whether C and C' represent one good or several goods.
So please clarify your situation and then explain what
could you mean by "exchange of equivalents".
__________________________
>
>
>
> b) A commodity is a use-value that has a certain
> value; this value is linked
> to the use-value in such a way that it is maintained
> if the use-value is
> still there and it disappears when and to the extent
> that the use-value
> disappears. No value can be created from nothing.
________________________
So, according to you depreciation, of fixed capital
must always be equal to zero?
___________________
>
>
>
> c) In ".P." there are only three things: 1) means of
> production; 2)
> labour-power; 3) labour.
>
> 1. The value of the means of production disappears
> when the latter disappear
> because they are transformed into a product. At
> most, their value can have
> passed to the value of the product. Therefore they
> cannot create new value.
>
> 2. The labour-power does not disappear at all.
> Therefore workers keep this
> value for them. It cannot create new value.
>
> 3. The only thing that can create value is thus
> labour, the activity of
> workers. The more this activity lasts the more will
> be the new value
> created.
>
>
>
> Therefore c is true: only labour creates value.
>
>
>
> Do you agree?
__________________________
No! I don't agree. Your number 3 above only says that
value is DEFINED as direct and indirect labor-time
spent in producing a commodity. Now, this everybody
knows. But how on earth you could conclude from here
that if a commodity is sold for $100, its value must
be 100 hours of labor? That's what beats me, and
that's what I want to know. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________
> Ajit:
>
> Yah, but how do you find out what would be the equal
> rate of profits in the system?
> ____________________
>
>
>
> Diego:
>
> The value of the product less the value of the means
> of production and
> consumption of workers, all divided by the value of
> the capital invested
>
> ___________________
>
>
>
> Ajit:
>
> But since from market prices you have already
> "deduced" that 1 hour of labor = $1, how could
> direct
> price be different from market price?
> ____________________
>
>
>
> Diego:
>
> Because to every different measure of value
> corresponds a different measure
> of price, and vice versa. For every magnitude of
> price a commodity has there
> is the corresponding magnitude of value.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>
> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation
> of labour values
>
>
> > --- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > Ajit wrote:
> >> I'm guessing that by "market prices" you mean
> prices
> >> that you
> >> OBSERVE in a given market. So if we find that a
> blue
> >> jeans is sold for $100 then you say it's "market
> >> value" is equal to 100 hours of labor. Leaving
> aside
> >> what "market value" could mean, could you tell us
> on
> >> what basis you could say something like that?
> >> __________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diego:
> >>
> >> Your guess is wrong because I am not saying
> >> something like that. My view is:
> >> if the whole mass of blue jeans produced all
> along
> >> the year and all across a
> >> country (or the entire world) is sold for a sum
> of
> >> money that, once divided
> >> by the number of blue jeans produced, gives us an
> >> average price of $100 per
> >> unit, then I say that its ‚?omarket value‚?Ě is
> >> equal to 100 hours of labour.
> >> That is quite a different thing from what you
> said.
> > _____________________
> > Not really. A "given market" takes care of all
> what
> > you are saying. In any case, given your averages,
> the
>
=== message truncated ===




____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:00:10 EST