[OPE-L:5002] Re: Production and Circulation

Ajit Sinha (ecas@cc.newcastle.edu.au)
Wed, 14 May 1997 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

At 07:33 AM 5/13/97 -0700, Chai-on Lee wrote:
>At 03:01 97-05-13 -0700, Ajit wrote:
>
>>My question is, what is the point of translating these monetary values to
>>labor units ex-post?
>
>Chai-on: No point. It is of no significance.
>
>>In my opinion, Fred is simply wrong. Marx
>>argued that the value of the constant capital must be measured by the
>>labor-time it takes to reproduce the constant capital currently, and not how
>>much it costs in monetary terms currently.
>
>Chai-on: Well, as far as we assume the market value of the machine is
>determined by its intrinsic value, we can measure the current value of the
>machine with its purchasing cost.
>In that sense only, I think, Fred's position is no harmful.
___________________

What is this "intrinsic value"? Could you explain how do you do this stuff?
_______

>
>>If we take Fred's position, then
>>we must admit that value is determined by the prices rather than the other
>>way round, and that too in a most unsatisfactory manner, as I have argued
>>before and Fred is yet to respond to my criticisms of his tansformation
>>problem solution.
>
>Chai-on:
>Although prices are determined by values, we can mneasure the value by the
>prices since the latter is determined by the former. Just as we measure the
>degree of temperature by the height of mercury, we measure the value by
>prices. Still, Fred's argument is no harmful provided that we admit it with
>a grain of salt.
______________

This sounds like nonsense. You can measure the value by prices even when you
do not know how values determine the prices, how?

Cheers, ajit sinha