**Next message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Previous message:**Rakesh Bhandari: "[OPE-L:3540] Re: Re:returns to scale"**In reply to:**Rakesh Bhandari: "[OPE-L:3540] Re: Re:returns to scale"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ show plain text ]

At 21:44 25/06/00 -0400, you wrote:

*> >However I am very dubious about the reality of price of production theory
*

*> >as applied to competitive capitalist economies.
*

*>
*

*>Like the equilibrium equation for interdeparmental exchange, prices of
*

*>production are theoretical, NOT REALISTIC, categories only in terms of
*

*>deviance from which can capitalist dynamics be understood. I also think
*

*>Marx needlessly exaggerates them as actual centers of gravity,
*

You are of course quite right that one can expect under Marx's price of

production theory for actual rates of profit to be distributed around

the mean. That is no problem for his theory, so long as the rates of profit

are uncorrelated with the organic composition.

In the standard (strong) statement of the transformation problem the

rates of profit are assumed to be identical in all branches. One can

modify it to a (weak) transformation problem in which one merely assumes

that whilst profit rates may be a random variable they are uncorrelated

with organic compositions.

The problem arises when there is a systematic correlation between

organic compositions and rates of profit. In particular, if there is a

negative correlation between them, then the problem of transforming

values into prices of production becomes less pertinent, since the whole

transformation problem arises from the assumption that profit rates

being either a degenerate distribution or being at least uncorrelated

with organic composition.

Consider the implication of values rather than production prices being

the centers of gravity of market prices. The implication of this would be

that industries with high organic composition would have low rates of

profit. This is rejected by Ricardo in Chap iv of his principles, and the

Marx carries over this rejection without questioning it. But if it turns

out to be the case that industries with high organic compositions do

have low rates of profit, then Ricardo's objection to commodities

exchanging in proportion to labour contents falls.

*> >It is technical coefficients that differentiate a developed from an
*

*> undeveloped
*

*> >economy.
*

*>
*

*>So? What does this have to do with the question? Within a developed or
*

*>underdeveloped economy one still cannot determine them, independent of the
*

*>level of demand.
*

The point is that in my understanding historical materialism has to start

out from

the material conditions of production. Unless you do that any other magnitudes

have no purchase. A sum of money is just a set of entries in the ledgers

of banks, and as such has not tie up to real values. Even a quantity of

gold coin has no tie up to values unless you know the conditions of

production. So to start ones analysis at the level of the economy

as a whole with a quantity of money gives you an under determined

system.

I wrote:

*> Such
*

*> >conditions
*

*> >can only change relatively slowly and by immense expenditures of labour.
*

You replied:

*>A rapid leap in the rate of evolution of productive forces is what
*

*>distinguishes
*

*>capitalism from all other modes of production.
*

I was talking about changes in the technology matrix of an economy

only taking place relatively slowly and at imense cost in labour. I agree

that if one is looking at a historical time scale of centuries, as implied

by your comparison with other modes of production, the change is

fast, but at an annual rate it its typically slow - a few percent a year.

Within this time scale, say 2 to 3 years, the difference between a

linear and a non linear model of returns to scale is sufficiently

small to be ignored.

Even on the longer term one can model technical change using

a basically linear Sraffian model provide that you make some simple

extensions:

1. The sraffian model typically assumes that you have a set of production

processes and associated intensities. It should be noted that the

intensities associated with individualprocesses can be zero.

2. It follows that one can model technical change by assuming that

there exists a large collection of processes operating at zero intensity

which represent technologies that are either obsolete, or, unreachable.

3. A process can be unreachable if it uses inputs that are currently not

being produced. If we place the restriction that all input coefficients

should be integer valued ( rather than real ) we can model the fact

that you need a certain minimum quantity of an input for

production to take place.

Given these simple extensions, a linear model is capable of handling

technical change.

Using a model like this you can understand why certain economies

in the process of industrialisation can develop at more than a few

percent a year - basically it is because they are able to activate

more productive techniques using imported machinery.

*> >2. There is no clear theorisation as to what an initial sum of money capital
*

*> >means as the social level.
*

*> >Does is mean the stock of cash in the hands of the public?
*

*> >Does it mean the sum of bank deposits?
*

*>
*

*>It means the money capital that was laid out as constant and variable capital.
*

What information is required to compute this?

Would I be right in assuming you would need to know current wages,

current stocks of all means of production and current prices of all means

of production?

**Next message:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Previous message:**Rakesh Bhandari: "[OPE-L:3540] Re: Re:returns to scale"**In reply to:**Rakesh Bhandari: "[OPE-L:3540] Re: Re:returns to scale"**Next in thread:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Reply:**Ajit Sinha: "[OPE-L:3542] Re: Re: Re: Re:returns to scale"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT
*