Re: (OPE-L) value, money, and the exchange of equivalents

[Phil Dunn <pscumnud@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jerry

I first sent this a day or so ago but something must have gone wrong

> (was "Unproductive Labour")
>
> Hi Phil.
>
> >  OK.  We have got two different notions of equivalance, hard and soft.
> >  The hard version says that whenever a product is sold, the seller gets an
> >  equivalent amount of money.  The soft version says that the seller does
> >   not get an equivalent amount of money, or only does so by chance.  Is
> >  money really an equivalent in the soft version?  Is it a reasonable use of
> the term?  An unequal equivalent?
>
>
> The equality on the aggregate level is: the sum of value = the sum of prices
> of production.   The subject of  prices of production is introduced in
> Volume Three of _Capital_.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Once one allows for deviations of price from value then commodities
> don't necessarily -- except in the aggregate -- sell at their value.
>
> You ask, in regard to the "soft version",  does the seller gets "an
> equivalent amount of money"?  I assume this to mean: does the
> seller receives an amount of money equal to the value of the
> commodity being sold? And, if not, is money still a universal
> equivalent?
>
> Let's take a simple example.  The following example is hypothetical
> but millions of similar examples happen everyday in contemporary
> capitalism.  Suppose next time you come to New York City (perhaps
> for an IWGVT mini-conference) we meet and decide to go for a
> walk.  A couple of blocks away from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, we
> pass by a Duane Reade pharmacy.  In the window of the pharmacy
> there is an advertisement that a 2 liter container of Coca-Cola is for
> sale for  $1.29.  As we proceed, we pass by a Gristedes supermarket
> and notice that a 2 liter Coke is being sold for $1.69.  A couple of
> blocks further we pass by a CVS pharmacy where a 2-liter coke
> is being sold for $0.79. In all three cases, there are not "minimum
> purchase" requirements or limits on the quantities sold/customer.
>
> Are all 3 potential exchanges the "exchange of equivalents"?

------------------
Phil:

Yes.  Strictly, only actual exchanges count.  But we can suppose
that, within a short period, 2 liter bottles of coke are sold for
$1.29, $1.69 and $ 0.79.  Say the value of money at the time is $1
hour per dollar.  Then the embodied labor values of the three bottles
are, respectively, 1.29 hours, 1.69 hours and 0.79 hours.

To put it another way, during our walk dollars are being spent on a
wide variety of products.  Whatever product is bought the buyer
receives 1 hour of embodied labor value for every dollar spent.  This
is what I understand the idea of money as a universal equivalent to
mean -- equal exchange.

Years ago, when I encountered Marx's citation of Aristotle:

          1 house = 5 beds

I thought -- how silly , cannot possibly be true.  For the best part
of two decades I believed in both price value deviations and money as
the universal equivalent.  It is not difficult to hold contradictory
beliefs.  Now when I look at Aristotle equality, I think  -- oh, of
course ... trivial.  Another house = a different 7 beds at the same
time.  No problem.  Equal exchange.

----------------
> Clearly,  paying $1.69 for a commodity is not equivalent for
> the buyer to paying $0.79 for exactly the same commodity.
> Also, it matters quite a bit to the seller what the price is because
> there is a different rate of return per unit depending on the price
> charged.
>
> In this instance, how do we even know what a price equivalent
> to the value of the soda is?   Is it $0.79, $1.29, $1.69 or some
> other amount?   In any event, if the same commodity during the
> same time and market sells for different prices, how can we speak
> of equivalent exchange for _each_ commodity sold?  I don't
> think we can.  What then happens to the so-called "law of one
> price" (LOOP)?

----------------

Phil :

The LOOP is plainly false, as your example shows.

----------------

> I think we have to be very careful when disaggregating that we
> don't assume that what (perhaps) is true on the aggregate level
> is also true in individual branches of production and for individual
> exchanges.  Doing so would be an example of the fallacy of
> division.  Similarly, we can not assume that what is the case in
> the aggregate is also the case during all temporal or in all spatial
> dimensions.

---------------

Phil:

Marx's analysis of the value form is not cast at the aggregate level.

>