From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 13:49:17 EDT
> 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? No. We can interpret the rate of profit r in the price of production formula as the price of money-capital advanced. In this sense, all output prices equal the cost of all the inputs to production. > I guess you are treating capitalist consumption as an input to > production. I cannot understand why you do this. No I don't do this. Capitalist consumption is an input to capitalist households. I do however treat money-capital as an input to production, which is implicit in the price of production formula. > Are you also saying that the value added by workers is equal to the > value of workers' consumption? The standard labour-value added by workers exceeds the labour-value of workers' csonumption (hence the symmetry breaking). The nonstandard labour-value added by workers, in self-replacing equilibrium, equals the nonstandard labour-value of workers' consumption (hence is symmetry preserving). That's because the nonstandard approach reduces the commodity money-capital to its labour cost, whereas the standard approach does not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT