From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 16:46:42 EST
--- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote: > 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 $100, then its "market value" is > 100 > hours of labor? That was the question. > __________________ > > > > Diego: > > In the last instance, the answer is that it is > already proven that all new > value is created by labour alone. That merit > corresponds to Marx. ________________________ Proven? No! you couldn't mean that. ______________________ Let's see. > The argument is: If a and b are true, then c is > true. And c is: "only labour > creates value". > > > > a) We start from the principle of exchange of > equivalents. Then M = C and C' > = M' in the scheme M - C .P. C' - M'. Therefore, > value is created in ".P.". ________________________ Let's say M = 500$ and C = 50 tons of iron. How is M = C? What you want to say is, Pc. C = M, so you already have introduced price of C. Similarly, when you say M' = C' is nonsense. What you must mean is M' = Pc.C'. Now it is also not clear whether your context is a factory, an industry or the whole macroeconomy and whether C and C' represent one good or several goods. So please clarify your situation and then explain what could you mean by "exchange of equivalents". __________________________ > > > > 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. ________________________ So, according to you depreciation, of fixed capital must always be equal to zero? ___________________ > > > > 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? __________________________ No! I don't agree. Your number 3 above only says that value is DEFINED as direct and indirect labor-time spent in producing a commodity. Now, this everybody knows. But how on earth you could conclude from here that if a commodity is sold for $100, its value must be 100 hours of labor? That's what beats me, and that's what I want to know. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > > _________________________ > 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 ‚?omarket value‚?Ě 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 > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:00:10 EST