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.
Quoting Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The punchline is that the value remaining in capital goods that have > already gone through a production cycle is indeterminate, especially > because of changes in reproduction costs of the capital. As a result, > one cannot know how much value will be transferred to the final product > from the constant capital because of this indeterminacy. >
Hi Michael, thanks for your reply.
I was aware of this punchline, but I don?t see what it has to do with the issue of sequential vs. simultaneous determination. Would you please explain?
In any case, I don?t see how this is a problem in Marx?s theory. You are right that we often don?t know in advance what constant capital is, because of technological change, and capitalists don?t know either. But in the real world, there is a definite amount of constant capital that is transferred to the long-run equilibrium prices of the output, as enforced by competition. This quantity of constant capital is an objective fact, even if we don?t know what the quantity is.
And whatever this actual constant capital is, that is what is taken as given in Marx?s theory, and transferred to the value and price of production of the output, and becomes one component of the long-run equilibrium price of the output. One doesn?t have to know what the magnitude of constant capital is, either ex-ante or ex-post, in order to assume that it exists and take it as given in the determination of the value of the output (sequential determination).
Furthermore, the precise magnitude of constant capital doesn?t matter much anyway, because whatever it is, it is simply transferred to the value of the output, and thus has no effect on the magnitude of surplus-value, which is the main variable explained by the theory.
So I don?t see why the empirical uncertainty of constant capital is a problem in Marx?s theory.
Comradely, Fred
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
- [OPE-L] Guerrero's text on LTV and double transformation, ope-admin Mon 03 Sep 2007, 14:10 GMT
- [OPE-L] New essay at artefact: Dialectic of Self and Other, Michael Eldred Sun 02 Sep 2007, 16:02 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] New essay at artefact: Dialectic of Self and Other, Dogan Goecmen Wed 12 Sep 2007, 10:40 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Fred Moseley Sun 02 Sep 2007, 01:05 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Fred Moseley Sun 02 Sep 2007, 01:13 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Riccardo Bellofiore Mon 03 Sep 2007, 15:44 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Paul Cockshott Mon 03 Sep 2007, 19:42 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Fred Moseley Tue 04 Sep 2007, 01:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Truncating Marx's "Capital", Ian Wright Tue 04 Sep 2007, 02:58 GMT