[OPE-L:1397] Re: quiz

glevy@acnet.pratt.edu (glevy@acnet.pratt.edu)
Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:30:30 -0800

[ show plain text ]

I don't have time to dig out the articles and look for the quotes, but
here are my guesses:

> (i) who are the authors behind the following quotes?
> (ii) do you think that the content of the quotes is a fair interpretation
> of Marx?

> A. "This misreading - on which a surprising consensus seems to exist among
> both critics of Marx and Marxist writers - consists of interpreting Marx's
> values and his prices of production as two alternative systems. For Marx
> the rate of profits on which prices of production depend could not have
> been determined by means other than the labour theory of value".
> B. "The expression 'transormation problem' is not Marx's ... there never
> was for Marx a 'problem' of transforming values into prices of production.
> There was only a problem of correctly determining relative prices and,
> therefore, of correctly determining the rate of profits"

i) Baumol's _JEL_ article from the early 1970's?
ii) Marx didn't use the expressions the "transformation problem" *or* the
"labour theory of value." Further, the "problem" wasn't one of
"correctly determining relative prices."

> C. "Unlike Ricardo's, Marx's argument is explicitely framed in two stages.
> Since the prices of production differ from the values only on account of
> the different distribution of the overall surplus-value of the economy,
> according to Marx the rate of profits is accurately determined, for the
> economy as a whole, on the basis of the labour theory of value. The prices
> of production are then obtained from the value by replacing the
> surplus-value produced in each branch of production with the part of the
> overall surplus-value of the economy belonging to that branch according to
> the general rate of profits."

i) Samuelson's _JEL_ article from the same time period?
ii) differ "only"? ... "accurately determined"?

> D. "What constitutes the substance of value cannot, in fact, but constitute
> the substance of revenues, as the latter stem from the breakdown of the
> value of a given set of commodities. It follows that the conception of
> abstract labour as the substance of value necessitates that the whole of
> this substance be found in the prices of production, having merely been
> partly diverted away from some commodities and channeled into others (as
> the enlightening comparison with the 'conservation of energy' shows)."

i) Roemer?
ii) "breakdown of a given set of commodities"? "enlightening comparison"?

> E. "It has been seen that Marx's basic insight was correct in that the data
> from which individual labour values and the aggregate magnitudes S, V, C
> are derived, do suffice to determine the rate of profits and relative
> prices."

i) Morishima?
ii) What claim did Marx make about such data?

Who else wants to play Riccardo's game?

In OPE-L Solidarity,