[OPE-L:2426] Re: response to Andrew, Part II

Fred Moseley (fmoseley@laneta.apc.org)
Thu, 30 May 1996 07:18:55 -0700

[ show plain text ]

At 12:06 PM 5/28/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Fred,--Andrew and I have repeatedly stated that we are satisfied with Marx's
>one period demonstration of the transformation of values into prices of
>production. In our own interpretation, each period is complete, has an equal
>rate of profit, and the basic equalities of total value and price as well as
>total profit and total surplus value hold. We have repeatedly differentiated
>ourselves from iterative solutions, (Shaikh), because we insist that the
>Sraffian convergent solution is not to be priviledged over other periods. As
>for holding physical inputs and labor constant, that is just a condition of
>simple reproduction which is adopted for the specific point of refuting
>Bortkiewicz on simple reproduction. The key issue is, "Can simple
>reproduction take place without stationary prices, i.e., when input prices
>differ from output prices?" Fred, do you think that the transformation must
>proceed over multiple periods because only the convergent solution where
>input prices equal output prices is "correct" ?

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your message. I guess my reply is the same as I replied to Alan
in (2021) and reposted two days ago in (2397): that even though you claim
that the transformation process is complete after each period, the
transformation process according to your interpretation cannot be complete
after each period because in the subsequent periods further equalizaton of
profit rates and further transformation of prices of production must take
place - otherwise rates of profit will not be equal in these later period.
I will not repeat the post here, but ask you to read the earlier post.

In answer to your last question: I do not think the transformation process
takes place over multiple periods. I have argued consistently prices of
production are completely determined as long-run equilibrium prices in a
one-period analysis.
I have criticized you and Andrew for presenting a multi-period
interpretation and am arguing now that, even though you now claim otherwise,
the logic of your interpretation (not mine) requires such a multi-period
interpretation. The "correct" solution is one in which the transformation
is complete in the sense that no further transformation takes place in
subsequent periods. It turns out that this condition is satisfied only when
input prices are equal to output prices.

I look forward to further discussion.