Simon replied to John in [2125]:
I'm sorry for the delay, but I am enmeshed in tedious admin here.
Anyway, if py is net output in money terms and lx is (productive)
labour hours worked, then anything which alters the ratio lx/py by
definition alters the value of money. If productivity changes are ruled
out by assumption 3, then by your assumption 2 yes, the value of
money will change. (There are other possibilities too: inflation of course,
but also a firm transferring some of its shop-floor labour
into its marketing and sales department.)
I suppose this matters if you want to derive a price from a labour-time via
the value of money. Is this what is troubling you?
Chai-on asks;
Simon: "if py is net output in money terms and lx is (productive)
labour hours worked, then anything which alters the ratio lx/py by
definition alters the value of money."??
This statement of yours distorts a causal ordering in Marx's value
theory. The lx and the value of money are to be given first and then
the py can be determined. Not the other way around. What
determines the price of a product? It is to be determined, according
to Marx, by the ratio of the value of the products and the value of
money if organic compositions of capital were the same. This
relationship is not of an identity but of an equation. But Simon
converted the equation into another form and thus distorted the causality
into the other way around. Why did you do this? Is it necessary for what?
with regards,
Chai-on