Re: [OPE-L] Queries about Karl Marx vs Adolph Wagner on value, exchange value and price formation]

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri Sep 21 2007 - 09:15:11 EDT

> The problem with Jerry's argument "Means of production and labour power
> must be *purchased* before they can become inputs in the capitalist
> production process" is that the valuation of inputs is itself defined in
> terms of purchases across an accounting interval.

Hi Jurriaan:

The "accounting intervals" in the transformation analysis (which
was what Paul C referred to in the post that I responded to) are (with
all their inherent non-dynamic limitations) periods of production.

> Functioning production capital however has no actual market price,
> because it is withdrawn from the market to produce new products. It
> has only a value and a use-value.

True, but that's not a problem within the context of period analysis.

>  What the value is, is according to Marx not determined by input prices,
>but by the average quantity of labour-time it currently represents or is
>necessary to replace it under the given market and production conditions.

I was not asserting that there is an identity between value and price.
Rather, I was asserting that  C and V  have both a value and a price.
They must have a price before the beginning of the production period for
them to be sold and _then_  enter as "inputs" into the production process.
 It is (I hesitate to use this word since in the current
discussions it has heavy connotations) a matter of the sequence.  Yes,
the temporal sequence.  When I am referring here to temporal sequence I
mean the logical, rather than historical or actual, sequence of events.
The explanation of sequence was, after all, a big part of the
analysis of circuits of capital earlier on in _Capital_ (in Part One of
Volume 2 especially).

In  solidarity, Jerry

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