[OPE-L:4321] Re: Price-Value Equivalence!

From: Andrew_Kliman (Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 05:16:56 EDT


Paul Z wrote in OPE-L 4313,

"Suppose I turn it around and ask, IF compositions are equal, do we have
price-value equivalence (I'm hesitant to use your prices = values,
because we have values measured in labor time, but I don't know what you
have prices measured in)?  This is a sufficiency question."

No, if the value compositions of capital are equal, prices will equal
values only if, in addition, rates of profit are also equal across
branches and wages rates are also equal across branches.

I'm continuing to use the expression "price = value," because value has a
twofold measure in Marx's theory (see first page of Ch. 3 of Capital I),
labor-time and money.  (And he regularly referred to monetary sums as
values, as well as originating the phrase "price = value.")  I think
it was only fairly recently that the idea arose that Marx's prices are
exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively
labor-time variables.  For instance, Bortkiewicz did not think that, his
values and prices were both in money.  His "transformatiuon problem"
concerned the magnitudes of values and prices, not their units of
measurement.  The first authors I have found who held that Marx's prices
are exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively
labor-time variables are Abraham-Frois and Berribi, in a late-1970s book.


Andrew Kliman

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 10:43 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:4313] Re: Price-Value Equivalence!


: Alejandro Ramos <aramos@btl.net> said, on 10/26/00:
:
: >So, Marx did know in Vol. I that, as Rakesh says, commodities don't
: >exchange at value. Hence, I don't see your point.
:
: I was supporting Rakesh, not criticizing him, by citing evidence that
Marx
: was clear on what he was assuming in Vol. 1 -- price-value equivalence.
:
: >I think the point here is if one want to make from these symplifing
: >assumptions the textual evidence for working out a self contained
"value
: >model" from which presumably another self contained "price model" will
be
: >later "derived"  la Bortkiewicz et al. Do you think this is what we
: >should do with these quotations?
:
: If we assume price-value equivalence, we can move onto other questions
: raised by Marx's understanding of the capitalist mode of production.  I
: have not been convinced that much is learned, one way or another, by
: worrying about the transformation problem.  In other words, in my view,
: there are much deeper problems to consider than this particular
interest
: (almost obsession) of Marxist economists.
:
: ===========
:
: "Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/26/00:
:
: >It is undeniable that Marx assumed prices = values from Ch. 6
throughout
: >most (but not all) of Vol. I.  What was at issue was whether he
assumed
: >compositions of capital were equal, which is a different claim, and
one
: >for which I've never seen evidence.  Also, that he assumed prices =
:
: Interesting.  Suppose I turn it around and ask, IF compositions are
equal,
: do we have price-value equivalence (I'm hesitant to use your prices =
: values, because we have values measured in labor time, but I don't know
: what you have prices measured in)?  This is a sufficiency question.
:
: >values does not imply that his results all depend on that assumption,
or
: >that his definitions are applicable only when that assumption holds.
:
: I agree.
:
: Paul Z.
:



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST