Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 20:16:28 EST

> Diego:
> I discuss this issue largely in the paper. For me, “prior” must be
> understood not in chronological terms but in logical terms. I criticize
> Alejandro Ramos and the TSS for their “chronological” interpretation.
> This
> is why constant capital has to be computed at replacement costs, not
> historical cost, and in this sense it seems that we agree provided you say
> “sequential” in this sense.
Hi Diego,
What do you mean by constant capital? The value of the used up means of
production as incorporated in the value of the produced commodity? How is
that value determined? By the value of the constant capital you don't mean
the value of the money required to purchase means of production at their
historical cost, no?  By the value of constant capital do you mean the
value of the money required to buy the used up means of production at
replacement costs?
Enjoying this exchange. Hope you can add a few lines of clarification.It
seems to me that there are many ways in which constant capital is in fact
valued, that there may be no one right way. Depends on the question,
Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST