Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 13:15:13 EDT

At 11:11 -0800 12-03-2007, Ian Wright wrote:
>>I do not understand very well. I guess the reference here is not
>>Sraffa, right? (this model is very soon left aside). If the given
>>data are the technique, direct labour coefficients and the real wage
>>rate, then one can deduce the rate of profit, of course. But at the
>>same time the prices. The fact that the former may be computed
>>independently from the latter I do not think makes it possible to say
>>that the rate of profit is known before prices.
>Riccardo, follow the logic a little more closely. You agree that the
>rate of profit can be deduced from the technique, direct labour and
>real wage rate. This means that the rate of profit is known before
>This is a small but crucial point. Add to your statement "But at the
>same time the prices" the statement "But at the same time nonstandard
>labour-values", which I have mentioned before on the list, and derive
>in a recent paper. Such nonstandard labour-values are independent of
>the price system and satisfy all Marx's identities, in particular the
>value rate of profit is  identical to the price rate of profit.
>Nonstandard labour-values include the labour-value of money-capital as
>a real cost. Standard labour-values ignore it. Standard labour-values
>are appropriate for production without money-capital, e.g. simple
>commodity production. You get a transformation problem when you
>compare standard labour-values with a price equation that includes the
>nominal cost of money-capital.

I am not sure I follow your logic, since I should read your other
posts and papers. I don't understand what is the meaning of "before"
in your reasoning. To me, it all seem simultaneous: rate of profit,
prices, 'values' of whatever kind. Given the data. Sorry, my fault.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT