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

From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Tue Feb 27 2007 - 17:38:02 EST

```Hi, Ajit,

D:

> That is quite a different thing from what you said.
_____________________
Ajit:

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
hours of labor? That was the question.
__________________

Diego:

In the last instance, the answer is that it is already proven that all new
value is created by labour alone. That merit corresponds to Marx. Let's see.
The argument is: If a and b are true, then c is true. And c is: "only labour
creates value".

a) We start from the principle of exchange of equivalents. Then M = C and C'
= M' in the scheme M - C .P. C' - M'. Therefore, value is created in ".P.".

b) A commodity is a use-value that has a certain value; this value is linked
to the use-value in such a way that it is maintained if the use-value is
still there and it disappears when and to the extent that the use-value
disappears. No value can be created from nothing.

c) In ".P." there are only three things: 1) means of production; 2)
labour-power; 3) labour.

1. The value of the means of production disappears when the latter disappear
because they are transformed into a product. At most, their value can have
passed to the value of the product. Therefore they cannot create new value.

2. The labour-power does not disappear at all. Therefore workers keep this
value for them. It cannot create new value.

3. The only thing that can create value is thus labour, the activity of
workers. The more this activity lasts the more will be the new value
created.

Therefore c is true: only labour creates value.

Do you agree?

_________________________
Ajit:

Yah, but how do you find out what would be the equal
rate of profits in the system?
____________________

Diego:

The value of the product less the value of the means of production and
consumption of workers, all divided by the value of the capital invested

___________________

Ajit:

But since from market prices you have already
"deduced" that 1 hour of labor = \$1, how could direct
price be different from market price?
____________________

Diego:

Because to every different measure of value corresponds a different measure
of price, and vice versa. For every magnitude of price a commodity has there
is the corresponding magnitude of value.

Cheers,

Diego

----- Original Message -----
From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

> --- 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 ā?omarket valueā? 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
> __________________
> Sorry! I cannot follow your mathematics. You are using
> 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: ā?oin 2005 the price
>> of a digital TV in the
>> world market was \$xā?. 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:
>>
>> ā?oAgain, instead of giving a straight answer to 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:
>>
>> I have already answered this question. I wrote to
>> you:
>>
>>
>>
>> ā?oAs for the exact quantification of Ļ? [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 Ļ? can be defined either in
>> gross terms (what we
>> call Ļ?1):
>>
>>
>>
>> (10)      Ļ?1 = mx/lx
>>
>> = px/lx
>>
>> = wx/lx
>>
>>
>>
>> or alternatively in net terms (Ļ?2):
>>
>>
>>
>> (11)      Ļ?2 = mĀ·(I-A)x / lx
>>
>> = pĀ·(I-A)x / lx
>>
>> = wĀ·(I-A)x / lx
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore if we call all the A-values simply Ī±, and
>> all the B-prices Ī², 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 ā?otranslationā?
>> 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 : Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:00:10 EST