**From:** Diego Guerrero (*diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES*)

**Date:** Tue Apr 03 2007 - 14:04:08 EDT

**Next message:**glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] calculating the not rate of profit"**Previous message:**Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**In reply to:**ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**Next in thread:**Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi, Ajit, Mi comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > Since my seminar is more or less under control, I can > indulge in some recreational activities! ________________ As it seems that you are in the playtime at school it is not surprising that you cannot see what the numbers are. Your example is erroneous because your numbers are arbitrary. If you believe that I compute prices in that way you are completely wrong. You need additional information for that. For instance, if the 500 hours of direct labour are split in 300 hours spent in the production of X and 200 in the production of Y, and also the output is X = 60 units and Y = 200 units, and also we need 80 Y por producing 200 Y, then the prices would be 1,67 for X and 0,33 for Y in your first case; and 2,083 for X and 0,33 for Y in your second case (when 1/5 of X is necessary in the production of 1 X). Likewise unit values would be 8.33 and 1.67 in the first case, and 10.467 and 1.67 in the second case. Direct labour would then be (60 x 5 + 200 x 1) = 500 in both cases, and GDP = 100 in both cases. And the melt would be in both cases 1/5. What you don't understand is that the value of the melt is not arbitrarily determined a priori, but a result of the real conditions of production and circulation that can be only known once the period we are analyzing is completed. Cheers, Diego ___________________ > Dear Diego, Since you claim that I don't understand a > word of Marx, let me show you what your understanding > of Marx amounts to. > Let us say the total direct labor in a year is 500 > hours and the net nominal GDP is $100. So the value of > your MELT happens to be $1 = 5hrs of labor. > > Let us suppose that a commodity X is produced by 2 > units of Y and 5 hours of labor. Let us also assume > that price of Y happens to be $5 per unit of Y. Now > according you your theory the labor value of X must be > equal to $10xm + 5 hours of direct labor, which is > equal to 55 hours of labor. Now if somebody asks you, > what is the price of X, you would say no problem, it > is 55/5 = $11! The question is: do you have any theory > of price that will ensure that the price of X will be > indeed $11? The answer is no. Now let me make it > furthermore clear to you, what it means: > > Let us suppose that X requires not only Y but also X > for its production. Let us suppose it takes 1/5 units > of X, 2 units of Y and 5 hours of labor to produce 1 > unit of X. Let us suppose that price of X happens to > be say $10 per unit and price of y is $5. Now > according to your theory, the labor value of X must be > equal to (10x(1/5)x5 + 2x5x5 + 5) = 65 hours of labor. > Now if somebody asks you what is the price of X, your > formula would suggest that it must be 65/m = $13, > which contradices the price of X you had assumed, > which was $10. So going back and forth with your m can > give you nothing but nonsense. Cheers, ajit sinha > >

**Next message:**glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] calculating the not rate of profit"**Previous message:**Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**In reply to:**ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**Next in thread:**Diego Guerrero: "Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT
*