IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Re Ajit's 3465 > >Furthermore, I think it is simply wrong to think in terms of whether a > >unit of a > >particular commodity is been sold or not. Let's say 100 tons of steel was > >produced. 95 tons were sold and 5 tons were added to the inventory. What is the > >serious theoretical problem in following the usual practice of counting the > >inventories as sold by the enterprise to itself? Cheers, ajit sinha > > Then anything which has been produced but not sold on the market becomes a > form of value production, in particular government orders. This procedure > would erase the distinction between production and capitalist production > and thereby undercut the theory of the limits of the mixed economy. At any > rate, inventories are superposed commodities which have not yet been > collapsed. > > Yours, Rakesh __________________ This makes no sense. Check out Ricardo's Principles page 12 (Sraffa's edition). The whole of classical economics is clear about what they understand about commodity, and what kind of products are brough under the purview of their analysis (what Govt.'s order has got to do with it? By the way, something that is a product of labor and sold in market may not be considered a commodity for the theory, e.g. a piece of art). As I see it, your problem is misunderstanding of concepts. At one level classical political economy, including Marx, distinguish between among broad category of production as commodity and non-commodity. Once the commodities are classified, then one does not look at every unit of those commodities and ask whether it is a commodity or not. Your problem basically deals with the excess supply of a commodity at any given time. This matter is dealt with by separating the concepts of market price and the natural prices (or the prices of production). it does not afferc the concept of value or the measure of it. You need to ask one question to yourself, and may be your Hegelian friends, does Marx have a theory of demand? If demand conditions are supposed to be critical in determining commodity-values, then Marx had to be an idiot not to have given a serious thought to developing a theory of demand. Where do you find a theory of demand developed in Marx? Cheers, ajit sinha
- [OPE-L:3469] Re: Re: measurement of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 09 Jun 2000, 14:47 GMT
- [OPE-L:3473] Re: measurement of value, Andrew Brown Fri 09 Jun 2000, 17:14 GMT
- [OPE-L:3468] float plan, Jerry Levy Fri 09 Jun 2000, 14:16 GMT
- [OPE-L:3467] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 09 Jun 2000, 14:10 GMT
- [OPE-L:3480] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Ajit Sinha Sun 11 Jun 2000, 12:50 GMT
- [OPE-L:3466] Re: Gil's necessary conditions, Jerry Levy Fri 09 Jun 2000, 13:42 GMT
- [OPE-L:3472] Re: Re: Gil's necessary conditions, Gil Skillman Fri 09 Jun 2000, 16:08 GMT
- [OPE-L:3462] shadow prices, Paul Cockshott Fri 09 Jun 2000, 10:06 GMT
- [OPE-L:3460] Details of Value Theory Symposium 29th and 30th June, Greenwich, Alan Freeman Fri 09 Jun 2000, 09:58 GMT