From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Feb 10 2006 - 13:22:04 EST
Hi Andy > Turning to your first question, you ask, "[w]hy do you think that an > economic structure (e.g. i/o matrix) *must* be reduced to a non-price > scalar in order for the economy to reproduce over time?" My answer > begins with the familiar point that reproduction is *caused* by a > scalar, a scalar that we have been calling 'price' [this name is not > accurate given the arguments of my last post - an issue I ignore below]. > This is not a matter of contingency. It is *continually* caused by this > scalar throughout the existence of capitalism. This scalar is the > dominant aspect of the social regulation of reproduction. Therefore this > scalar must be necessarily related to feasible reproduction proportions > (i.e. to self-reproducible economic structures). I spelt out a similar > proposition before so I think you agree with it. Yes. > Now, we know what is and what is not necessarily related to feasible > reproduction proportions by scrutinising them. (To comprehend an object > requires comprehension of its necessary relations). And on scrutinising > them, there is only one scalar to which they are necessarily related, > viz. SNLT. No. That's the N-R transformation problem: it denies that prices are "necessarily related" to SNLT. Why? Because the dual-accounting systems are mismatched. According to this critique, you cannot explain prices in terms of labour-values ("no way" of going from the value prong to the price prong, even in the aggregate). So you're begging the question here -- or implicitly assuming a response to the TP. > The extent to which Sraffian prices are related with feasible > reproduction proportions can only be determined by this prior scrutiny > of such proportions. If *no* scalar is necessarily related to feasible > reproduction proportions then price (a scalar) cannot be either. Price is related to "feasible reproduction proportions". That's not in question. What is contested by his N-R critics is Marx's claim that those prices *represent* SNLT, even in the aggregate. > A telltale sign that we have some sort of deep disagreement here is that > the above just seems plain and obvious to me. Clearly it seems plainly > and obviously wrong to you. I wonder if my exposition has at least > helped to find where, precisely, our disagreement lies? Not yet. (And I think we may disagree on the significance of the N-R critique, but I do not think we have deep disagreements on value-theory). But we may be beginning to go around in circles. I'm not taken with your argument that labour-time must be "it" because generalized production time is also "time". That also seems to be begging the question. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 11 2006 - 00:00:01 EST