**Next message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Previous message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4796] Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4796] Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Next in thread:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Reply:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Fred, I am truly sorry for misrepresenting you. Months ago, I asked you to lay out your formula for value determination. There was not a reply. In a very recent post you had argued that cost price remains the same in the formula for value and price of production. This meant that you had proposed this formula for value determination: (1) k + s => V I on the hand think Marx only at times represents value this way: (1a) V = k + s You agree that (1) cannot be strictly correct as a formula for value determination, and reasonably argue that this has been implicit in your interpretation all along. Now my interpretation of value is indeed a monetary one through and through. For me a commodity simply does not have value unless it is sold (even inventories are in a superposition until collapsed by monetary measurement!). If the commodity is sold, only then does it has value (V), the monetary expression of which (W) depends on the value of money or rather its inverse. (2a) Lmp + Lc => V (2b) Vm => W (implies V<>W, where <> means proportionality) (2c) W => k + s so in (2c) that value as monetarily expressed (W) is then resolved into cost price and surplus value. Surplus value is thus a monetarily expressed residual once cost price has been taken from total value, as monetarily expressed. (Of course it follows that a rise in k, ceteris paribus, means a equal fall in s--this is the practical meaning of Ricardo's critique of Smith's adding up theory of price.) I still think my three criticisms apply to your formula, so I'll await your next post. Moreover, I am quite unclear as to how you are defining constant capital. And like Allin,it seems to me that your interpretation simply collapses price and value. I just wanted to clarify here that my interpretation has a stronger monetary side than I think you are recognizing. All the best, Rakesh

**Next message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Previous message:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4796] Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**In reply to:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4796] Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Next in thread:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Reply:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:4798] Re: Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST
*