Re: [OPE-L] equilibrium and simultaneous vs. sequential determination

From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 07:43:39 EDT


On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 00:10 -0700, Ian Wright wrote:

>
> In the abstract, the reason Marx's theory appears to break down is
> that his explanation of the production of surplus-value is "symmetry
> breaking": the labour-value added by workers exceeds the labour-value
> of the inputs to worker households (input labour-values do not equal
> output labour-values). But in self-replacing equilibrium the price
> system is "symmetry preserving": the price of every commodity,
> including labour, exactly equals the price of the inputs used-up to
> produce it (input prices equal output prices). Given the conditions of
> the problem there cannot be a conservative transform between the
> labour-value system and the price system in this special case. Hence
> the transformation problem (TP). (My recent paper goes into this in
> great detail).
>

Have I misunderstood? When you say "the price of every commodity,
including labour, exactly equals the price of the inputs used-up to
produce it (input prices equal output prices)" do you actually mean that
profits (sales less wage and non-wage costs) are zero?

I guess you are treating capitalist consumption as an input to
production. I cannot understand why you do this.

Are you also saying that the value added by workers is equal to the
value of workers' consumption?



___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use"  The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT