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.
In sum: Marx's "solution" to the transformation problem in Ch. 9 of Volume 3 presumes a world in which phenomena derived from the world of capitalist price competition (i.e., constant and variable capital understood as cost prices) and exposed to a process of capitalist price competition that results in equalization of rates of exploitation, somehow result in outcomes that are *not* expressed in the world of capitalist prices--that is, "values," understood as distinct from "prices of production." *But there is no such world.* If, as Marx (and Fred) insist, constant and variable capital appear in Ch. 9 in their competition-determined price-form, and capitalist competition is understood to equalize the rate of exploitation or something like it, than the outcome of this process can be none other than capitalist prices of production. There is no limbo-capitalism in which competition acts on "values" but not on "prices of production." But as a result, Marx's conclusion in Ch. 9 is either contradictory--because it requires equal sectoral compositions of capital, the opposite of what he assumes--or simply irrelevant, because it depends on a mythical, alternative-universe process of "value"-generation. In the history of Marxian thought there have been some variations on the basic error--for example, if one *doesn't* take the expressions of constant and and variable capital in the first table as cost-prices--but the error remains (in the latter case, because there is no reason to think that processes of capitalist operation on *anything other* than prices, cost- or otherwise). Gil
- [OPE-L:3559] Economics and related journals for sale, P . J . Wells Tue 04 Jul 2000, 12:45 GMT
- [OPE-L:3558] Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Rakesh Bhandari Tue 04 Jul 2000, 04:50 GMT
- [OPE-L:3557] Re: Re: Non-constant returns to scale and the LTV, Gil Skillman Tue 04 Jul 2000, 00:35 GMT
- [OPE-L:3555] Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Mon 03 Jul 2000, 20:40 GMT
- [OPE-L:3556] Postscript to 3555, Gil Skillman Mon 03 Jul 2000, 21:17 GMT
- [OPE-L:3573] Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Fred B. Moseley Fri 07 Jul 2000, 13:58 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:3574] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Fri 07 Jul 2000, 15:11 GMT
- [OPE-L:3577] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Fred B. Moseley Mon 10 Jul 2000, 14:28 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:3589] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: money-capital as initial givens, Gil Skillman Wed 26 Jul 2000, 23:28 GMT