[OPE-L:5371] Re:Luxuries in the New Solution

=?EUC-KR?B?t/m1v7nO?= (rieudm@nownuri.net)
Sun, 17 Aug 1997 00:57:29 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

In ope-l : 5370, Andrew said,
>>>actually, I think the point is even simpler : the general rate of profit<<<
>>>is the weighted average rate of all firms(or industries), and so a change<<
>>>in the relation of surplus-value to capital advanced in any firm or <<<
>>>industry implies a change in the general rate. This is the case whether<<<
>>or not profit rates are equalized or tend to be equalized.<<<

Yes, I totally agree to this point. But, some points must be noted.
1) My argument was not equalization itself, but tendency of equalization,
in the sense that every capital pursue higher rate of profit.
2) In the 'sraffian simultaneist' framework, although the fact that the
general rate of profit is the weighted average of all industries is admitted,
a change in luxury sector cannot affect the general rate of profit.
Okishio already proved this point. cf. Okishio(1974), "Value & Production
Price" in M.Krueger & P.Flaschel eds., <Nobuo Okishio-Essays in Political
Economy>, Verlag Peterlang.
The reason this proof was successful is that he defined the value of labor
power by value of wage bundles.
My point is that, if we want to maintain Marx's thesis on luxury industry,
we must define value of labor power in other way. This is one of the
contributions of NS, I think.

In ope-l:5370, Andrew wrote,
>>>In any case, however Rieu and I seem to be in agreement that the logic <<<
>>>Marx's argument has *nothing* to do with wages. Therefore, I reiterate<<<
>>>that an adequate interpretation must be able to replicate Marx's result<<<

Yes, as I noted in ope-l:5369, simultaneist framework doesn't guarantee all
results of Marx. But I don't think that our theoru must be able to replicate
all results of Marx. The problem is to maintain the key point of Marx's
surplus value theory, ie. profit is determined by surplus value produced in
all industries including luxury sector.
I think that Marx's argument has nothing to do with wages, too. But we need
not take <w=0> case too seriously. Remember it applies to only quasi-slave
society. Rather, full automation case(l=o) will be worth studying, because
it can be a 1st approximation of capitalism in the future. Frankly speaking,
I have no special idea how to treat this case.