Re: [OPE-L] why does the debate on the "transformation problem" continue?

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@WFU.EDU)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2007 - 20:59:58 EDT

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Ian Wright wrote:

> Sorry Allin I didn't get around to replying to you directly.

No problem.

>> Ian, could you explain why you think that is the case?
> Simply that dropping the assumption of uniform profits, and
> replacing with a distribution of profits, will not alter the
> usual criticisms: that the standard labour-value rate of profit
> is not the price rate of profit, and that standard labour-value
> is not conserved in price. (I should mention that this is my
> intuition, I have not spent time to prove this).

If you drop the assumption of uniform profits and replace this
with the assumption of a stochastic distribution of profits, then
my intuition is this:

If you impose the normalization that total prices = total values,
you will find that total profit = total surplus value holds in
expectation, though not in each realization.  I've tried messing
with a computer simulation of this which seems to confirm that
inituition, though I won't claim too much for this since the
question of how precisely one should set up the simulation is

If this result is correct, I'm not at all bothered by it:
Stochastic satisfaction of Marx's dual equalities seems good
enough to me.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT