[OPE-L:7004] [OPE-L:496] Re: Kliman on Moseley

Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:15:22 -0500 (EST)


Thanks for the question. I have only been skimming the recent flurry of
posts and had not noticed Andrew's reference to me as a "simultaneist".

My very brief answer to your question is, no, I do not consider myself a
"simultaneist". I have emphasized that, in Marx's theory of prices of
production, the rate of profit is NOT determined simultaneously with
prices of production. Instead the rate of profit is determined PRIOR to
prices of production. The rate of profit is determined by the prior macro
analysis of capital in general (or the total social capital) and is then
taken as a given, predetermined magnitude in the subsequent micro analysis
of competition, and of prices of production in particular.

I think Andrew calls me a "simultaneist" because I also argue (with much
textual evidence presented to OPEL) that, in Marx's theory of prices of
production, constant capital is valued at current reproduction costs
(where "current" means, as usually interpreted, at the time of sale of the
output); in other words, that input prices are assumed to equal output
prices. But I insist that that does not make me a "simultaneist", at
least in the usual sense of the term to mean simultaneous determination of
the rate of profit.

So Andrew is indeed calling me by a label that I do not accept as a
self-characterization. So I think it as appropriate for Jerry to put this
label in quotes, to indicate that this is someone else's characterization
that, as David said, should be approached critically.


On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Gerald Levy wrote:

> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:45:59 -0500 (EST)
> From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:474] Kliman on Moseley
> Rakesh reproduced a post from another list by Andrew K on Brenner in
> [OPE-L:471]. Andrew writes in passing:
> > (6) One cannot accept this argument -- or use the falling valu
> e
> > argument to defend Marx's law of the tendential fall in the
> > profit rate -- and, at the same time, advocate Moseley's
> > interpretation of Marx's value theory (as Rakesh has done),
> > because Moseley is a simultaneist. In other words, it follows
> > from his interpretation that riding productivity and falling
> > values will RAISE, not lower, the profit rate.
> Fred: when did you convert to simultaneism?
> Andrew: in what sense can it be said that Fred is a "simultaneist"?
> Also: why does *Fred's interpretation* -- re "givens" in Marx's theory --
> require that "riding (sic) productivity and falling values will RAISE, not
> lower, the profit rate"?
> In solidarity, Jerry