[OPE-L:1263] Re: determination of constant capital

akliman@acl.nyit.edu (akliman@acl.nyit.edu)
Thu, 29 Feb 1996 19:04:18 -0500

[ show plain text ]

Andrew here, responding to Paul C. (ope-l 1248):

Paul's response boggles the mind. I have shown that the quantitative
results of temporal and simultaneous valuation truly differ, so that
the differences pertain to different CONCEPTS of value determination,
not just different ways of accounting. Paul responds that accounting
problems do occur where things have to be revalued. YES, PAUL, but
on the basis of the ACTUAL output prices--and the temporal and
simultaneous CONCEPTS of how value is DETERMINED imply DIFFERENT
output prices. Simultaneism implies a THEORY of how value is
DETERMINED that is wholly INCOMPATIBLE with the determination of
value by labor-time.

Paul also says simultaneism makes good sense because it implies that
if output remains the same (as is implied by a 1% rise in labor
productivity and a 1 0.000000all in labor extracted) and real wages remain the
same, then the profit rate remains the same. I agree this makes good
sense if your THEORY is that value is not determined by labor-time.
But in Marx's theory, as we all know, the unit value of output should
fall, thus lowering the profit rate, when the same amount is produced
with less labor.

Face it--simultaneism implies that physical input (including real wage)
and output magnitudes determine everything else, except for the
unit of measurement. Dmitriev knew this, Sraffa knew this, the Sraffians
know this, Okishio used this concept to "prove" Marx wrong, etc. Why
do "Marxists" refuse to recognize this extremely simple FACT?

Andrew Kliman