[OPE-L:6779] Re: Andrew Kliman "Stigler and Barkai on Ricardo's Profit Rate Theory"

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 14:42:51 EST


Andrew writes:

Table 1

Interpretations of Marx's Value Theory: Contrasting Implications
	Interpretation



Marx's Theoretical Conclusions
Standard (simul-taneous dual-system)
Simul-taneous Single-System

Temporal Single-System

Equalities and Inequalities
      profit rate = s/(c + v)			
      total price = total value	2		
      total profit = total surplus-value	2		
      values always > 0	3		

Relations of Determination
      profit always > 0 if surplus-labor > 0	3	3	
      surplus-labor always > 0 if profit > 0	3	3	
      mechanisation itself can reduce profit rate1			
      variations in living labour
          performed affect profit rate1			
      profit rate invariant to distribution of profit1			
      profit rate affected by luxury industries1			
      inputs lacking value before
          production transfer no value			
      unit values invariant to real wage rate			
      unit values invariant to length of working day			

Conclusions deduced	2	4	13

Conclusions negated	11	9	0




Andrew does not mention here that the TSS school and simultaneous 
single system school (Fred M) both    negate Marx's result of double 
divergence.

That is, for both schools

(1)"The value transferred to the product by constant capital is then 
given, not as the labour time embodied in its components, but as the 
labour time represented by the money paid for it, being its money 
price multiplied by the value of money or divided by the monetary 
expression of labor time" (Alan Freeman, Alejandro Ramos, Fred M).

(2)if this is so, Marx's talk of double divergence has to be--as 
Allin long ago recognized, and I came to understand much 
later--gibberish and logically incoherent and should in effect be 
ignored.

This is not an idle debating point but goes to the heart of unequal 
exchange and the present tumult in global markets.

Some capitalists are not able to retain the new value which is 
embodied in their commodities. Which does not mean that the value is 
destroyed. It may merely means that some other capitalist has got 
hold of it.

For example, say there is a glut of steel. Let's say the glut is so 
bad that the steel producers cannot realized, cannot get the price, 
any of the new value which they have created in making the steel. 
They have to sell to the engineering firms  which buy their steel, at 
bare cost. Does that necessarily mean that they new value of the 
steel is lost? Not at all. It is acquired by the lucky engineering 
firms. They get their raw materials unexpectedly cheap. ANd they, if 
they are quick, may be able to realize the new value which the steel 
makers failed to retain, as well as the value which they have 
themselves added, when they sell their finished commodity.

In periods of disturbance such cases of one capitalist group, 
purloining the values produced by another, frequenly occur, and they 
in part persist until the transfer of capital from one industry to 
another can put the matter right.

Rakesh



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST