Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2007 - 12:16:05 EDT

> I think that this is just wrong. This is not what Sraffa means by the dated labour interpretation, though it is an accurate account of von Neumanns growth model.

I do not claim that Sraffa interprets equation (5) in this way. I make
reference to Sraffa's phrase "reduction to dated quantities of labour"
but in fact Sraffa never writes down equation (5) in PCMC. His dated
labour formula includes a non-zero compound profit mark-up. He only
implicitly uses equation (5) when he remarks that prices are
proportional to (standard) labour-values only when profits are zero.

But all this remains a side issue. My interpretation of equation (5)
is in terms of a process of replacement that involves growth. This is
one way of helping readers understand the difference between standard
and nonstandard labour-values.

> There is no growth assumed in the Sraffian dated labour interpretation, and you have not
> demonstrated that it must involve such growth. Merely showing that at each cycle of
> production fewer means of production are required to be used than are produced, which is
> all your equation 6 rests on, does not amount to such a demonstration

Here I simply disagree. Not only can equation (6) be interpreted in
this manner, but the interpretation also explains the net value
equality of standard labour-values, and the wage value equality of
nonstandard labour-values.

But this is also a side issue. I am not attacking standard
labour-values for supporting a counterfactual process of replacement
that involves growth. Nonstandard labour-values also have this
property. And there is a very good reason why any labour-value formula
must support such an interpretation, namely the irreducibility of the
standard unit of measure.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT