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

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 16:42:13 EST

```--- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote:

> > Ajit wrote:
> I'm guessing that by "market prices" you mean prices
> that you
> OBSERVE in a given market. So if we find that a blue
> jeans is sold for \$100 then you say it's "market
> value" is equal to 100 hours of labor. Leaving aside
> what "market value" could mean, could you tell us on
> what basis you could say something like that?
> __________________________________________
>
>
>
> Diego:
>
> Your guess is wrong because I am not saying
> something like that. My view is:
> if the whole mass of blue jeans produced all along
> the year and all across a
> country (or the entire world) is sold for a sum of
> money that, once divided
> by the number of blue jeans produced, gives us an
> average price of \$100 per
> unit, then I say that its “market value” is
> equal to 100 hours of labour.
> That is quite a different thing from what you said.
_____________________
Not really. A "given market" takes care of all what
you are saying. In any case, given your averages, the
question still remains on what basis you say that if a
jeans is sold for \$100, then its "market value" is 100
hoursof labor? That was the question.

>
> __________________________________________
>
>
>
> A:
>
> Furthermore, since "prices of production" I guess,
> in
> your scheme, cannot be observed, what meaning can be
> given to the statement that 'if prices of production
> of a blue jeans is \$200, then its "production value"
> would be 200 hours of labor? And same for direct
> value
> and direct prices--whatever they may mean.
> _______________________________________
>
>
>
> D:
>
> See below
__________________
fonts that are not compatible with internet fonts. If
you put it in readable fonts then I may be able to
comment on them.
>
> _______________________________________
>
>
>
> A:
>
>
> > (2) What is the difference between direct values,
> > production
> > values and market values and similarly with
> prices?
> > _______________________________________
>
> D:
>
>
>
> When all prices and values are understood as
> averages in time and space, the
> difference between them is the following. The market
> price is actual price
> in the sense in what you say: “in 2005 the price
> of a digital TV in the
> world market was \$x”. The price of production
> corresponds to a different
> price: the one that would equalize the rates of
> profits in all sectors
> included TV sector.
_________________________
Yah, but how do you find out what would be the equal
rate of profits in the system?
____________________
The direct price of the TV is
> the price that would
> equate the rate of surplus-value in that sector with
> the average rate of
> surplus-value in the entire economy. Only market
> price is real, the other
> two are ideal or conceptual prices.
___________________
But since from market prices you have already
"deduced" that 1 hour of labor = \$1, how could direct
price be different from market price?
____________________
>
>
>
> In my view, each of those prices, as they differ
> quantitatively between
> them, are the monetary expressions of different
> quantities of labour
> provided we realize that the only real quantity of
> labour is that of the
> market value whereas the other two are ideal ones.
___________________
Yah, but how do you find those ideal measures is the
question. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
>
> _______________________
>
> A:
>
>  (3)Where does euro or dollar come from? Remember!
> > you
> > are in your theoretical world, where you have
> > apparently taken a set of production equations for
> > the
> > production of your commodities and wages for labor
> > etc. If you have specified a relationship of this
> > system with euro or dollar then make it explicit.
> > Otherwise, you have no option than to take
> something
> > like gold or silver, which is produced as a
> > commodity
> > in your system of production, as a measure of your
> > money variable.
> > _______________________________________
>
>
>
> D:
>
> In my answer I quoted others and then you said:
>
>
>
> A:
>
> straight question, you are quoting other people. I
> don't care about what other people say, I want to
> know
> how in your theory a particular entity figures in.
> You
> should know it best and should be able to explain it
> best. Why quote anyone else? You say, "for every
> commodity I translate from labour to money by using
> "the average, social productivity of labour in terms
> of money", please explain how do you do this.
> __________________________________
>
>
>
> D:
>
> you:
>
>
>
> “As for the exact quantification of π [i.e. "the
> average, social
> productivity of labour in terms of money"], and
> having into account that
> total output holds invariable through both
> transformations (see below):
>
>
>
> (9)        wx = px = mx,
>
>
>
> we reach the result that π can be defined either in
> gross terms (what we
> call π1):
>
>
>
> (10)      π1 = mx/lx
>
> = px/lx
>
> = wx/lx
>
>
>
> or alternatively in net terms (π2):
>
>
>
> (11)      π2 = m·(I-A)x / lx
>
> = p·(I-A)x / lx
>
> = w·(I-A)x / lx
>
>
>
> Therefore if we call all the A-values simply α, and
> all the B-prices β, we
> can express every horizontal movements going from A
> to B and vice versa in
> Table 1 as done in equation (12), whereupon we can
> conclude that this kind
> of movements are simply a sort of “translation”
> from one language to
> another, which can be checked in the apparent
> chaotic way of expression of
> Marx in Capital, that is not but the result of this
> double correspondence:
>
>
>
>
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
```

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