[ show plain text ]
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> Hi Ajit,
> Thanks for your clarification in (3792) of your equations in (3775), which
> does help. With these corrections, I am happy to say that I agree that
> your equations down through the equations of prices of production are
> indeed accurate representations of my interpretation of Marx's theory.
Now we are getting somewhere.
> But from there on is where we disagree. As I have noted before, Marx's
> prices of production are determined completely independently of physical
> quantities and unit prices. You go on to determine the unit prices of the
> outputs (which you mistakenly called prices of production in 3775), and
> from these unit prices you derived the quantities of inputs, and conclude
> that this "derived technology" depends on m.
> Would you please explain further how you conclude that this "derived
> technology" depends on m? Please remember that, Marx assumed that, if m
> changes, then all monetary variables, including the inputs of constant
> capital and variable capital will change proportionally. (C.III: 236 and
> 238; TSV.II: 203; and MECW.33: 106)
The technology in your formulation depends on m is simple. Your two sector
money equations are given by:
$400 + $400r = $y and
$300 +$300r = $z, where r = (200 - m.L)/700
Now the change in m will cause the r to change, $200, $700, and L are your
Change in r will now change the value of $y and $z. Given that there are 5
units of iron and 10 units of wheat produced in the system, with the changes
in $y and $z the derived per unit price of iron and wheat will change. Now
since your ci's are observed givens in money terms, it must remain $300 and
$200 respectively. However, now those $300 and $200 must imply different
physical amounts of iron, given that per unit price of iron has changed. Thus
the technology that lies underneath your system must change with changes in m.
Now you say, "Please remember that, Marx assumed that, if m
changes, then all monetary variables, including the inputs of constant
capital and variable capital will change proportionally." I don't think Marx
ever talks in terms of "m". But assuming that what you say is true, then it
should give you a reason to think that may be you are misinterpreting Marx.
Because the logical implication of your interpretation is obviously not what,
according to you, Marx is saying.
> Thanks in advance. I look forward to continued discussion, which despite
> its difficulties, I think is making progress. Thanks for sticking with
You are welcome! Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT