Re: [OPE-L] The importance of the sraffian standard system in relation with the transformation problem (Cont.)

Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 20:39:21 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: Vicenš MelÚndez
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] The importance of the sraffian standard system in
relation with the transformation problem (Cont.)

Dear Mr Levy,

Below there are two additional comments on the subject.

Kind regards,


1.- Original message
"Dear Mr Levy,

I send you the following comment in relation to the past discussion  -but
not the last one! -  on the transformation problem (which  I followed  via
website publishing), that could be pertinent to OPE-L.

It has been said (by Maurisson and Abraham-Frois&Berrebi) that the sum of
prices in relation to the sum of values and the sum of profits in relation
to the total plusvalue,  have the same  proportion within the sraffian
standard system (in such a system, for every product-branch, its use as
input and its output, have the same proportion; this special situation can
be obtained for all of these linear equations sraffian systems). However,
as far as I know,  it has not been stressed, in my opinion, the fact that
it is not simply a special case in which the marxian transformation holds.
This situation is precisely the case in which the system reproduces,
having a surplus in the exact demanded input quantities and with no waste
or scarcity of new inputs (replacing previous consumed constant capital
and adding new investment that cover all surplus).

An example  of that case  is presented in the reference given by Jurrian
Bendien (Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:40:04 +0200):
(second example; it is composed to ensure that the inputs generated in the
surplus are in the system's needed proportion, which is the pursued


you may find an Excel file, "example ajit Sinha", showing this same situation

Kind regards,


Vicenš MelÚndez

  2.- Comment from Ian Wright

"Dear Vicenš,
Sorry I cannot open Excel files. But if I recall correctly, an economy
in Sraffa's "standard proportions" is indeed growing at its maximum
possible rate. In this case, prices of production are proportional to
standard labour-values, hence no transformation is required. This is a
known result; I think Morishima discusses it.

  Comment to  I Wright

Labour analysis would be an innecessary detour  because the  quantites
produced are the element that makes it possible such proportionalty of
sums in prices and values (total production and profits and plusvalue).
But, in my opinion, the values represent the real costs and profits
generated, while in  the relative prices what we have is a money
expression where the rate of profit is also  present (see dated labour in
Sraffa) and may not represent exactly real costs and profits as for
instance in the measurement of increases or decreases of prices when there
has been technical progress (what is normally counted as price decreases
due to technical progress may well be a price increase measured in
relation to labour embodied) (see note on prices in address above)
Nevertheless, it remains a remarkable point that when  waste of inputs is 
avoided and  the production is realized, there is a coincidence of labour
and price magnitudes.

3.- Comment  from R Vienneau
"As I understand it, an economy in standard proportions need not be
growing at the maximum rate of growth. Think what happens if workers all
their wages, and capitalists consume some of their profits. Assume both
workers' and capitalists' consumption baskets are in standard proportions.

Nor are Sraffa's prices proportional to labor values when the economy is
in standard proportions. What one can say then is that all of Marx's
volume 3 invariants hold.

I did open Vicenš's Excel file, but only looked at it briefly. I did not
understand it. I find it a challenge to document a spreadsheet.

It is true than when an economy is in standard proportions, it can
theoretically grow smoothly. But the economy can theoretically grow
smoothly, with Sraffa's prices prevailing, when the economy is out of
standard proportions too. Think what happens if consumption baskets are
not in standard proportions, but levels of operation of each process are
such that needs for use are exactly met."

Comment to R Vienneau

I raise the question regarding the use of the surplus, that is,
considering the rationality of the systems once  a surplus has been
produced, which I think is a more logical point of view. At that level it
could be assumed not considering changes in capitalist consumption. Other
circumstances like no realization of plusvalue, etc., are not considered

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT