Malaysia cracks down on immigrants
The Times of India TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 Malaysia cracks down on immigrants AFP KUALA LUMPUR: More than 4,500 illegal immigrants have been arrested and 7,067 squatter houses demolished in a major crackdown in Malaysia's Sabah state, police said on Tuesday. Most of the 3,841 immigrants arrested were Filipinos, while 697 were Indonesians, Sabah police headquarters' spokesman Inspector Rieduan Abdullah said in a statement. The aggressive operation began two weeks ago, and aims to evict some 30,000 illegal immigrants from Sabah, which is in eastern Malaysia on Borneo island. We will continue indefinitely, to get them all out, a police spokesman said after the first week of the crackdown, saying those arrested would be held in detention camps before being deported. The action in Sabah is in line with a tougher approach throughout Malaysia, which is home to 750,000 legal foreign workers and hundreds of thousands of mainly-Indonesian illegal immigrants. The government has said it aims to deport about 10,000 Indonesian illegal immigrants every month. While Malaysia says illegal migrants have contributed to a growth in crime and other social problems, the tough new line is also seen as a bid to protect jobs for locals in a time of economic hardship. Copyright © 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus. The fake attempts to show that surplus-labor is necessary and sufficient for profit *under simultaneous valuation* all fail because of precisely this phenomenon. To be precise, I actually have proved only that all of the simultaneist interpretations of Marx -- specifically, simultaneist definitions of profit and surplus-labor -- imply that surplus-labor is neither necessary nor sufficient for profit. I have not claimed to prove that the assumption of simultaneous valuation *logically* precludes one from asserting that surplus labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for positive profit. The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Andrew Kliman Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a role in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a role in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value. Gil
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002: RELEASED TODAY: From 1999 to 2000, multifactor productivity rose 1.9 percent in the private business sector and 1.8 percent in the private nonfarm business sector, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Multifactor productivity increased for the ninth consecutive year in both the private business and private nonfarm business sectors. The 1999-2000 rates of increase were the highest since 1992. Amid signs of a strengthening job market, some Americans laid off as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks have found work again, says Kemba J. Dunham in The Wall Street Journal (page B10). It is difficult to track precisely how many people lost their jobs as a result of September 11. Lewis Siegel, a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics analyst, says about 126,000 Americans were laid off between September 15 and January 12 in cuts directly or indirectly tied to the attacks. The figure solely covers layoffs lasting more than 30 days and involving more than 50 people at the same company. Equally elusive is the number of September 11 layoff victims who found new jobs. But a spokesman for New York City's Human Resources Administration says his agency held four Twin Towers Job Expos in October through January. Out of the 27,000 people who attended the job fairs (a figure that includes serial attendees) at least 1,300 subsequently found jobs. Some businesses damaged by the September 11 attacks have begun to rehire their laid-off staffers. In 2000, 55 percent of mothers with children under 1 year old were working or looking for work, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (USA Today, page 1B; http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-03-12-stay-home-moms.htm). That's down from 1998, when the labor force participation rate was almost 60 percent, and the first decrease since at least 1976. The percentage of women who worked during their first pregnancy also has shown its first leveling off since 1961. And the number of working, married women with children under 3 also has stalled, going from an annual average of 4 million in 1999 to 39 million in 2000, according to the Department of Labor. Top ranking U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve officials on Tuesday expressed hope the economy is in the midst of rebounding from the shallow recession it entered last year. I am happy to say that the United States is now coming out of the recent slowdown. The fourth quarter of last year showed positive real (gross domestic product) and recent data on production and employment indicate that the U.S. economy has turned the corner, said John Taylor, Treasury's Under Secretary for International Affairs. Taylor was speaking at the Brazilian American Chamber of Commerce in Fortaleza, Brazil. Those sentiments were echoed by Federal Reserve Governor Mark Olson during a speech to a thrift trade group here (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/2843943.htm). Friday's positive job numbers didn't seem to help those unemployed the longest. While the number of unemployed for 14 weeks or less fell 4 percent to 5.3 million, those unemployed 15 or more weeks saw their numbers grow 0.6 percent to 2.6 million. They now make up about a third of the unemployed compared with about 25 percent a year ago. Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp., Cleveland, speculates that many companies wait as long as possible to lay off essential personnel, who are then the first hired back when the outlook improves (The Wall Street Journal's Work Week feature, page A1). Of 150 executives at big companies, 84 say they expect to increase staffing this year, says a survey by the consulting firm Accenture Ltd. But of these 84, about two-thirds said they expect to hire fewer than 1,000 workers (The Wall Street Journal's Work Week feature, page A1). Places to move? Hawaii and South Dakota reported the biggest unemployment-rate drops in January from December, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics (The Wall Street Journal's Work Week feature, page A1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment: January 2002 application/ms-tnef
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without suppressing anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 21:53 UTC Charles, you write CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the definition of profit. First things first: where does Marx make surplus value part of his definition of profit? ^^^ CB: Capital Vol. III Chapter 2. The Rate of Profit -clip- The capitalist does not care whether it is considered that he advances constant capital to make a profit out of his variable capital, or that he advances variable capital to enhance the value of the constant capital; that he invests money in wages to raise the value of his machinery and raw materials, or that he invests money in machinery and raw materials to be able to exploit labour. Although it is only the variable portion of capital which creates surplus-value, it does so only if the other portions, the conditions of production, are likewise advanced. Seeing that the capitalist can exploit labour only by advancing constant capital and that he can turn his constant capital to good account only by advancing variable capital, he lumps them all together in his imagination, and much more so since the actual rate of his gain is not determined by its proportion to the variable, but to the total capital, not by the rate of surplus-value, but by the rate of profit. And the latter! , as we shall see, may remain the same and yet express different rates of surplus-value. The costs of the product include all the elements of its value paid by the capitalist or for which he has thrown an equivalent into production. These costs must be made good to preserve the capital or to reproduce it in its original magnitude. The value contained in a commodity is equal to the labour-time expended in its production, and the sum of this labour consists of paid and unpaid portions. But for the capitalist the costs of the commodity consist only of that portion of the labour materialised in it for which he has paid. The surplus-labour contained in the commodity costs the capitalist nothing, although, like the paid portion, it costs the labourer his labour, and although it creates value and enters into the commodity as a value-creating element quite like paid labour. The capitalist's profit is derived from the fact that he has something to sell for which he has paid nothing. The surplus-value, or profit, consists precisely in the excess value of a commodity over its cost-price, i.e., the excess of the total labour embodied in the commodity over the paid labour embodied in it. The surplus-value, whatever its origin, is thus a surplus over the advanced total capital. The proportion of this surplus to the! total, capital is therefore expressed by the fraction s/C , in which C stands for total capital. We thus obtain the rate of profit s/C=s/(c+v), as distinct from the rate of surplus-value s/v. The rate of surplus-value measured against the variable capital is called rate of surplus-value. The rate of surplus-value measured against the total capital is called rate of profit. These are two different measurements of the same entity, and owing to the difference of the two standards of measurement they express different proportions or relations of this entity. Capital Vol. III Part I. The Conversion of Surplus-Value into Profit and of the Rate of Surplus-Value into the Rate of Profit Chapter 3. The Relation of the Rate of Profit to the Rate of Surplus-Value Here, as at the close of the preceding chapter, and generally in this entire first part, we presume the amount of profit falling to a given capital to be equal to the total amount of surplus-value produced by means of this capital during a certain period of circulation. We thus leave aside for the present the fact that, on the one hand, this surplus-value may be broken up into various sub-forms, such as interest on capital, ground-rent, taxes, etc., and that, on the other, it is not, as a rule, identical with profit as appropriated by virtue of a general rate of profit, which will be discussed in the second part. So far as the quantity of profit is assumed to be equal to that of surplus-value, its magnitude, and that of the rate of profit, is determined by ratios of simple figures given or ascertainable in every individual case. The analysis, therefore, first is carried on purely in the mathematical field. We retain the designations used in Books I and II. Total capital C consists of constant capital c and variable capital v, and produces a surplus-value s. The ratio of this surplus-value to the advanced variable capital, or s/v, is called the rate of surplus-value and designated s'. Therefore s/v=s', and consequently s=s'v. If this surplus-value is related to the total capital instead of the variable capital, it
Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Doug wrote: Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. Manuel PS: In fact the important point in Drewk's message was that you can't define *a* physical surplus. How do you measure it? In tons? In litres? In a bundle of commodities so ingeniously arranged that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product? No, definitely you can't add pears and apples. Drewk was not calling for revolution, was he?
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that he is trying to suppress Marx. Your accusation could never be proven, but only asserted. And the repetitive assertion of suppression serves no positive purpose. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:36:51AM -0500, Drewk wrote: Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 21:53 UTC Charles, you write CB: Your argument for this is probably in your previous posts, but could you reiterate it ? Does it follow from something else that surplus value is a necessary condition for profit ? Marx makes surplus value part of the definition of profit. First things first: where does Marx make surplus value part of his definition of profit? ^^ CB: There is also this. Capital Vol. III Part I. The Conversion of Surplus-Value into Profit and of the Rate of Surplus-Value into the Rate of Profit Chapter 1. Cost-Price and profit -clip- In its assumed capacity of offspring of the aggregate advanced capital, surplus-value takes the converted form of profit. Hence, a certain value is capital when it is invested with a view to producing profit [4], or, there is profit because a certain value was employed as capital. Suppose profit is p. Then the formula C=c+v+s=k+s turns into the formula C=k+p, or the value of a commodity=cost-price+ profit. The profit, such as it is represented here, is thus the same as surplus-value, only in a mystified form that is nonetheless a necessary outgrowth of the capitalist mode of production. The genesis of the mutation of values that occurs in the course of the production process, must be transferred from the variable portion of the capital to the total capital, because there is no apparent distinction between constant and variable capital in the assumed formation of the cost-price. Because at one pole the price of labour-power assumes the transmuted form of wages, surplus-value appears at the opposite pole in the transmuted form of profit
Re: Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re gardingsurplusvalue and profit
Resende Manuel wrote: Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Doug wrote: Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. I forgot, PEN-L isn't the place for humor. Ok, I'll lay it out. Proving him right? That the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other radicals? That's ridiculous. Marx has been suppressed by anti-Marxists, but by the RRPE edit board? That's beyond ridiculous, that's delusional. And what really are the consequences? Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly? When Antonio Callari told the IWGVT that they used value theory as a substitute for politics, there wasn't a peep of reaction from the crowd. Nor was there when Bertell Ollman told them (at the same session) they didn't understand how alienated their categories were. Sad, very sad. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus. now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus. Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical surplus can be expressed. Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of production in which the surplus value is embodied. But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for that physical quantity. If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and explosiveness of accumulation. My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist. And again here is Marx on the matter: Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in both its aspects: ...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly. The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence, out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage Rakesh
utility of value
[was: RE: [PEN-L:23902] RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit] Drewk writes: This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. I don't think it's a matter of conscious suppression, but that's an issue which people have already flogged to death. I think one of the problems is that many academic economists and many non-academic economists like to dwell on theoretical issues and aren't interested in applying theories to actually-existing capitalism. If more people were to actually apply the law of value to new issues and to develop new theories, it might get more respect (though not from the orthodox economists). The key point is that the law of value is extremely simple and can and should be applied: (1) As Sweezy pointed out many years ago in his commentary on the Hilferding/Böhm-Bawerk debate, Hilferding isolated the difference between the two perspectives: Marxian political economy starts with an understanding of society as a whole, while Böhm-Bawerk -- and by extension, modern orthodox economics -- start with the totally partial perspective of the individual. (2) value theory is very simple, in that values represent a way of viewing a commodity-producing society from a macrosociological perspective, looking at capital in general and labor in general; individual values represent a true-by-definition accounting framework, an acid of abstraction, which allows a serious observer such as Marx to break through the fetishism of commodities -- something impossible when using prices -- in order to understand the societal nature of capitalist class relations. (There's one word that will raise the hackles of economists above: sociology. Economists seem to instinctively sneer at sociology. They should, but they should also sneer at economics, which has much greater pretentions -- of being scientific, etc. -- than sociology does, while being much less tolerant of theoretical differences. (There's no hegemonic theory in sociology, unlike in economics, the last time I checked.) A crucial Marxian principle, it seems to me, is that economics is a sub-field of sociology.) (3) the main parts of the so-called transformation problem are that (a) total value = total price (both corrected to avoid double-counting and stated in the same units) at any specific time. (b) total surplus-value = total profits+interest+rent (both stated in the same units). The key point is that the left-hand sides of the two equations determine the right-hand sides because new value and surplus-value must be created by socially-necessary abstract labor time. The macro quantities constrain the competition among capitalists, so that a capitalist who reaps a price (or profit, interest, or rent) above the value (or surplus-value) of his or her commodity is gaining from other capitalists. Given this, the so-called transformation problem is really a disaggregation problem. (4) Given the simplicity of this, value theory can be applied to understand reality in commodity-producing societies and to develop new theories. See my article the Utility of Value in the 1990 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY (volume 12). For example, I think that the distinction between macro and micro -- or what Engels termed the contradiction between socialized production and individual appropriation of value and surplus-value -- is central to any conception of crisis theory, distinguishing it from mere macroeconomics. In this view, both abstractions and empirically-oriented analysis are important, since they are complementary. This will not satisfy either the pure theorists (e.g., Roemer) or those who lean heavily toward empiricism (as Doug seems to do some times). (BTW, I'll miss James Tobin, who turns out to be the basis for the character Tobit in Herman Wouk's THE CAINE MUTINY. He also stuck to New Deal liberalism during the 30-year (so far) moral plague that's hit the world. I don't agree with that perspective, but it showed true principle to stick to it.) Jim Devine
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I don't deal in counterfactuals. Instead of diverting the issue, why not deal with it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without suppressing anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit
I appreciate Manuel Resende's post. Someone is dealing with the issue instead of diverting. Good! Manuel highlights a key issue that I had not: a bundle of commodities so *ingeniously arranged* that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product (my emphasis). Exactly. This standard commodity is a facile trick, having nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems that apply to it have no bearing whatever on what takes place in the real world. They don't apply. Likewise with the attempts to prove that one doesn't need Marx's value theory in order to hold that exploitation is the sole source of profit -- they're all based on ingeniously arranging an imaginary economy so that there's never a physical deficit or negative physical net product of anything. This has nothing to do with real-world conditions, so the theorems don't apply to the real world. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Resende Manuel Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23907] Re:Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof re garding surplusvalue and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Doug wrote: Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Dear Doug: By your reaction, you are proving Drewk right. And that is not funny. Manuel PS: In fact the important point in Drewk's message was that you can't define *a* physical surplus. How do you measure it? In tons? In litres? In a bundle of commodities so ingeniously arranged that it always corresponds to the weighing of each component in the product? No, definitely you can't add pears and apples. Drewk was not calling for revolution, was he?
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
The issue, Michael, has nothing to do with differing about what Marx said. It has to do with false PROOFS that what he said are logically incoherent, in error, etc. Those false proofs have been disproved. When the disproofs are not acknowledged, when the historical record is not corrected, when the allegations of error and internal inconsistency continue even after the alleged proofs have been disproved, then is that not suppression? If not, how would you explain it? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23908] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew, people can differ to you about what Marx says, but that does not mean that they are conspiring to suppress Marx. For example, Justin knows that I strongly disagree with his reading of Marx, but I do not dream that he is trying to suppress Marx. Your accusation could never be proven, but only asserted. And the repetitive assertion of suppression serves no positive purpose. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:36:51AM -0500, Drewk wrote: Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Much economic criticism of Marx aims at showing that the labor theory of value is not a reasonable working hypothesis in a complex capitalist economy (the hoary transformation problem) so it shouldn't even be allowed to be applied to analysis and serious problems. This is not something serious scholars do, it is something propagandists, hacks and worse of all metaphysicians do. This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23911] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world. ok Andrew you deny the existence of A physical surplus. The concept is appealing, but ultimately meaningless. Physical things are heterogeneous, and there are surpluses of some, deficits of others. There cannot be any the physical surplus. now you deny the existence of THE physical surplus. Granted there is not a single dimension in which this physical surplus can be expressed. Granted that with technical progress--say computers--it would be difficult for example to determine how many more computer means of production in which the surplus value is embodied. But I think it's a mistake to deny that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that the mass of surplus value even if it falls falls relative to the advanced capital is in fact being expressed in a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods, even if we have no precise measure for that physical quantity. If you deny this, you miss a crucial source of the elasticity and explosiveness of accumulation. My criticism of the TSS school again is that it is anti physicalist. And again here is Marx on the matter: Here is an example of Marx's ability to understand the surplus in both its aspects: ...the development of labour productivity contributes to an increase in the existing capital value, since it increases the mass and diversity of use values in which the same exchange value is represented, and which form the material substratum, the objective elements of this capital, the substantial objects of which constant capital consists directly and variable capital at least indirectly. The same capital and the same labour produce more things that can be transformed into capital, quite apart from the exchange value. These things can serve to absorb additional labour, and thus additional surplus labour also, and can in this way form additional capital. The mass of labour that capital can command does not depend on the its value but rather on the mass of raw and ancillary materials, of machinery and elements of fixed capital, and of means of subsistence, out of which it is composed, whatever their value may be. SINCE THE MASS OF LABOUR APPLIED THUS GROWS, AND THE MASS OF SURPLUS LABOUR WITH IT, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL REPRODUCED AND THE SURPLUS VALUE NEWLY ADDED TO IT GROWS AS WELL. Capital 3, p. 356-7. vintage Rakesh
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Andrew writes: A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. ok I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB
On Rormer
On 2002.03.13 06:41 AM, "Gil Skillman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, thanks for your post. It is entirely appropriate to demand care in definition and usage of terms, especially in these first steps. Regarding your discussion below, are you saying that because one necessary condition for _surplus_ value is that it follow a circuit of capital, that Marx contradicts his earlier declarations that labor is the only source of new exchange-value ? That he contradicts his idea that no new value is created in the exchanges between capitalists ? Gil : No. As I state in point (2) below, value is determined by socially necessary labor time. CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. I agree with the distinction you're drawing. I don't think it matters, since my statement presupposes that labor is the source of value as Marx defines the term in KI/1, but better safe than sorry. In the same spirit, I'll note that I'd favor the statement that "labor is the only source of value" over the statement "labor is the only source of new exchange-value," since Marx draws a distinction between the two, such that exchange-value is understood as the necessary "mode of expression, of form of appearance, of value." Again, I don't think it matters for the purpose at hand, but there's at least one point in the argument to follow where the distinction may arise. Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2* conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter 5 comment "Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and not in circulation." (p. 268, Penguin ed.) My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the possibility that surplus value's "origin...in circulation" may *require* at least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value disparities are mere "disturbing incidental circumstances which are irrelevant to the actual course of the process" (p. 269, footnote) is invalid. CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, "surplus value" and "capital" are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of popup in one's mind) No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit. As far as I can tell, "capital" in the passage I cited above is shorthand for "the transformation of money into capital," a phrase that Marx uses in the passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite. Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses "the transformation of money into capital" as a corollary of "creation of surplus value"--compare, for example, his usage of "surplus value" at the top of p. 268 and the near-parallel use of "transformation of money into capital" near the bottom. When you say " *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value." what does "the latter" refer to ? "Targetted price-value disparities " ? Oops. The first "the latter" refers to the phrase "at least targeted price-value disparities" and the second "the latter" refers to "surplus value." I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ? I'm making a distinction here between *general* disparities between commodity values and their respective prices, treated by Marx on pp 263-264, and disparities between the price and value of a specific commodity or type of commodity. This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused I'll stick with the logical point for now: if you establish that condition A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established that A is "incidental" to B, since the possibility remains that condition A is *necessary* for condition B. Marx never addresses the latter possibility one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument. CB: Are you saying that "price-value disparities might be both necessary and sufficient for surplus-value ? Sorry if I am not quite following the reasoning. No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that "price-value disparities are not sufficient to explain the existence of surplus value." But he makes no demonstration one way or the other concerning the
RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone agrees on. One person's proof is another's obfuscation, suppression, etc., as you yourself admit. I don't know the details of the history of your interaction with other points of view, so I don't know whether others have totally ignored your disproofs or not. Maybe they have. My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework. There are exceptions, of course. Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me. I'll be there. Mat -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without suppressing anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially and historically determined) means of subsistence. My understanding is that the time required to produce the means of subsistence is necessary labor time. Total labor time (TLT) - necessary labor time (NLT) = surplus labor time (SLT). If TLT NLT, SLT is positive, and there must be a physical form of the goods produced during SLT, no? There is another sense in which I might agree with you, but that would only hold if we also rejected the notion of surplus labor time as well. But if we accept SLT, then it is hard for me to imagine how there is no physical surplus product. But I might be convinced. I actually do deny the existence of a physical surplus, in the real world.
RE: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I've been suppressed this way for years, so I can identify. --mbs What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Andrew Kliman
Re: Marx's Proof
Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and perhaps misses what might be important. Among other things you wrote: Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly? Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible answers: 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common interpretation of Marx is that technical change is labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as to say that capitalists innovate in a Rube Goldberg fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism has held for over a century. I doubt this is true and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in particular. So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to capitalism could exist side by side with a society growing in such Rube Goldberg fashion. 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard eco thought, little if any attention is paid to moral depreciation. Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate this absurd possibility. Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and what are the consequent changes in valuation. If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. John
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Doug Henwood wrote: the 'real Marx' is being suppressed by Marxists and other radicals? That's ridiculous. This is a distortion of my claim. Deal with my actual claim, which concerns the failure to acknowledge that the false proofs of internal inconsistency and error have been disproved, the repetition of the claims of internal inconsistency and error despite the disproofs, and my characterization of this as suppression. If my claim is ridiculous, it should be easy for you to disprove. Go ahead, do so. Put your money where your mouth is. When Antonio Callari told the IWGVT that they used value theory as a substitute for politics, there wasn't a peep of reaction from the crowd. Nor was there when Bertell Ollman told them (at the same session) they didn't understand how alienated their categories were. Sad, very sad. This mischaracterizes what was said. Neither spoke a negative word about the IWGVT. I largely agreed with Ollman's comments, which dealt with the way economists in general construe Marx. You may despise my politics, but you can't say that I use value theory as a substitute for it. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23903] Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Drewk wrote: The silence about this issue is deafening. What's the sound of one side suppressing Marx? You have only to listen to the silence. Wow, heavy. You mean if this suppression hadn't occurred, we'd be living under socialism by now? Doug
RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. I'll be happy to send you, or anyone else, an electronic copy upon request. You need to be able to read math written in MSWord's equation editor 3. what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? This is a very complex issue that I have no time to address now. Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? Yes, but I've written less about the accumulation process than you may think. Refutations of the Okishio theorem and the displaying of possible profit rate paths different from the path of the material rate of profit don't count as analyses of the actual accumulation process, in my book. Andrew Kliman P.S. For some reason, a lot of my mail is vanishing before it hits my Inbox, so there might be posts that I haven't replied to because I haven't seen them. I've retrieved a couple from the archives already. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23918] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Andrew writes: A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. ok I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I appreciated Mat Forstater's post. I agree with most of what he says Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone agrees on. No, I actually don't, since, as you say: My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework. This is EXACTLY the point. EXACTLY. The people who claim(ed) to prove that Marx committed these errors and such actually just have methodological, philosophical, and other disagreements with him. They have not proven what they claim to prove -- *internal inconsistency*, i.e., that Marx does not make sense within [his] own framework. Please keep in mind that all of the proofs by proponents of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory are actually disproofs. E.g., Marx's critics say they have proven that, even without his value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. I've disproved this. I mention this because there's a fundamental asymmetry between proofs and disproofs. One should indeed be very skeptical about claims to prove something. What's usually at issue are instead disagreements ... based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like. It is much more plausible that someone who claims to disprove something is right. If you claim that something someone said can't be right, you have to show that there is *no* interpretation under which it is right. It just doesn't wash to say, here's my interpretation of Keynes. Under my interpretation, there is this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. Ergo, Keynes committed this error, that internal inconsistency, etc. There's a missing premise, namely that one's interpretation has been proven to be correct. But to disprove the claim, all one needs to do is show that there's some possible other interpretation according to which it makes sense. Also, when one proves that something is necessary or impossible, the proof is valid only if it holds in all possible cases, while the presentation of even a single counterinstance is enough to disprove the claim. People understand this, but they often fail to understand an important implication: one is not permitted to make methodological choices when one constructs a proof, if doing so restricts the set of cases under consideration. For instance, Marx's critics are entitled to favor models in which all physical surpluses (or net products) of everything are always positive. Their methodological reasons for this might be good or they might be bad, but that's irrelevant. They simply cannot use these models to prove that even without Marx's value theory, surplus-labor can be shown to be necessary and sufficient for profit. They prove no such thing. They prove merely that surplus-labor and profit happen to coexist under a very restrictive set of circumstances. I don't know whether others have totally ignored your disproofs or not. I wouldn't say totally. But I would say there's only one individual (besides us) who has more or less forthrightly acknowledged that any of our disproofs is correct. In _Research in Political Economy_, Vol. 18 (2000), Duncan Foley wrote: I understand Freeman and Kliman to be arguing that Okishios theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility. But people still keep going around asserting that the Okishio theorem is true, and that it disproves Marx's original version of his law of the tendential fall in the profit rate. And certainly no one else has chosen to back Foley up. Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me. Actually, that wasn't my intent -- I intervened in an existing thread simply in order to correct an incorrect statement Gil Skillman made -- but I'll look forward to seeing you (again) there. Andrew Kliman
Marx vs. Roemer
Marx vs. Roemer by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 21:46 UTC CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. Gil: I agree with the distinction you're drawing. I don't think it matters, since my statement presupposes that labor is the source of value as Marx defines the term in KI/1, but better safe than sorry. In the same spirit, I'll note that I'd favor the statement that labor is the only source of value over the statement labor is the only source of new exchange-value, since Marx draws a distinction between the two, such that exchange-value is understood as the necessary mode of expression, of form of appearance, of value. Again, I don't think it matters for the purpose at hand, but there's at least one point in the argument to follow where the distinction may arise. ^^^ CB: OK , agree. Exchange-value is the mode of expression of value, not use-value. ^ Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2* conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter 5 comment Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and not in circulation. (p. 268, Penguin ed.) My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the possibility that surplus value's origin...in circulation may *require* at least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value disparities are mere disturbing incidental circumstances which are irrelevant to the actual course of the process (p. 269, footnote) is invalid. CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, surplus value and capital are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of popup in one's mind) No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit. As far as I can tell, capital in the passage I cited above is shorthand for the transformation of money into capital, a phrase that Marx uses in the passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite. Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses the transformation of money into capital as a corollary of creation of surplus value--compare, for example, his usage of surplus value at the top of p. 268 and the near-parallel use of transformation of money into capital near the bottom. ^^^ CB: Page 268 : Is that in Chapter 5 ? I hesitate, because it seems that the creation of surplus value is in production. I have more that idea that in M-C...P...C'-M', the surplus-values are created at P. The transformations of money into capital occurs at M-C and then again at M'-C'', no ? When you say *entirely granting* the point that the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. what does the latter refer to ? Targetted price-value disparities ? Gil:Oops. The first the latter refers to the phrase at least targeted price-value disparities and the second the latter refers to surplus value. ^ CB: I believe I follow now ^ I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ? I'm making a distinction here between *general* disparities between commodity values and their respective prices, treated by Marx on pp 263-264, and disparities between the price and value of a specific commodity or type of commodity. ^ CB: Got it ^^ This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused I'll stick with the logical point for now: if you establish that condition A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established that A is incidental to B, since the possibility remains that condition A is *necessary* for condition B. Marx never addresses the latter possibility one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument. CB: Are you saying that price-value disparities might be both necessary and sufficient for surplus-value ? Sorry if I am not quite following the reasoning. No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that price-value disparities are not sufficient to explain the existence of surplus value. But he makes no demonstration one way or the other concerning the claim price-value disparities are not necessary for the existence of surplus value, leaving open the possibility that they *might* be necessary, at least under some conditions. Since no claim has been made about
Stock Market Prices
I hate to go off topic and deal with the illusionary world of prices . . . Does anyone know where can I find FREE data on _historical_ stock market prices? That is, for both individual stocks and variable aggregates (like DJ Industrial average). I know of CRSP(http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/research/crsp/), but they charge $1,000 for their data. Dogs. Thanks for any help. Eric Nilsson
RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat Forstater wrote: I don't see the problem with the notion of a physical surplus. The surplus product is production over and above production of the (socially and historically determined) means of subsistence. Yes, according to one interpretation of Marx, but not others. But let's stick with this. Imagine a two-good economy. During the period, 10 units of each good is produced, workers consume 5 units of each good, and 8 units of good A (and 0 of B) are used up. Then the physical surplus of A is 10 - 8 - 5 = -3, and the physical surplus of B is 10 - 5 - 0 = 5. So there is no the physical surplus. There's a physical deficit of A, a physical surplus of B. Total labor time (TLT) - necessary labor time (NLT) = surplus labor time (SLT). If TLT NLT, SLT is positive, and there must be a physical form of the goods produced during SLT, no? Yes and no. There will in general be surpluses of some goods and deficits of others. E.g., more cars produced than used up and consumed by workers, but less steel produced than used up. There will be negative net products of some goods produced during the SLT. Car workers produce a physical surplus of cars during their SLT, but a negative physical surplus of steel. Steelworkers produce a positive physical surplus of steel but a negative physical surplus of coal. Etc. So you have to look at the whole economy. But when you add it up, there's no reason why the aggregate physical surplus of anything has to be positive, especially during a short time-span -- minute, hour, day, week. If you want more specificity, consider another two-good economy. Sector A produces 10 units of A, using 9 units of A and 1 unit of labor. Sector B produces 3 units of B, using up 2 units of A and 1 unit of labor. So there's a positive net product of B, 3 units, and a negative net product of A, 10 - 9 - 2 = -1 unit. Now under the interpretation in question, the per-unit value of A is 1 and the per-unit value of B is also 1, so the total value of the net product is 2. Imagine that workers' wages are *very* low, so that surplus-labor, the total value of the net product minus the value of wages, is very close to 2. If, however, the relative price of A in terms of B is greater than 3, then profit -- measured simultaneously -- will be negative. So we have surplus-labor but negative profit. This was just a simple example for intuitive purposes. It is much more restrictive than the proof in my paper, which again, I'll be happy to send folks. Drewk
Re: Re: Marx's Proof
I am just trying to get Marx's basic vision. Does this sound right? By c and v, I mean the money sums laid out as constant and variable capital The cost price (c+v) of each commodity drops. It gives the first moving capitalist an immediate advantage, and greater ability to all capitals to survive wherever the price level settles. Moreover, the ratio of v/c tends to drop. But this does not mean that c need rise in absolute terms per commodity; it can rise as long as v drops by more than the rise of c, which of course only says that the cost price (c+v) has to drop. This is labor saving change. If c per commodity drops--that is capital-saving change--v per commodity will tend to drop even more, so that v/c tends to drop even though the denominator is falling in absolute terms. Machines are becoming ever cheaper and more powerful. If one provisionally assumes a constant rate of surplus value, the drop in v/c in the course of accumulation requires that the rate of accumulation must be fast enough to ensure that the mass of profit rises. So say as a result of the fall in V/C the rate of profit is halved each year. If the amount of profit is to remain the same, then the total capital must double each year. This is the absolute minimum rate of accumulation: the multiplier indicating the growth of total capital must be equal to the divisor indicating the fall in the rate of profit. The accumulation of capital is made possible by the greater quantity of use values in which the diminishing flow of surplus value relative to total capital advanced is expressed. Rakesh Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and perhaps misses what might be important. Among other things you wrote: Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly? Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible answers: 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common interpretation of Marx is that technical change is labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as to say that capitalists innovate in a Rube Goldberg fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism has held for over a century. I doubt this is true and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in particular. So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to capitalism could exist side by side with a society growing in such Rube Goldberg fashion. 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard eco thought, little if any attention is paid to moral depreciation. Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate this absurd possibility. Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and what are the consequent changes in valuation. If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation
Rakesh writes I also had written the following on which Gil did not comment: To say that additional capital is increasingly in short supply vis a vis the new and displaced laboring population as accumulation progresses only means that in the course of accumulation the primordial source of this capital, surplus value, becomes progressively more scarce, too small, in relation to the already accumulated mass of capital I skipped this because my response would have been redundant: i.e., whether or not surplus value becomes progressively more scarce...in relation to the already accumulated mass of capital has no particular relation one way or another to the question of whether labor is subsumed under capital, and thus no particular reason to venture into the hidden abode of production. Again, there's no reason to think that the possibility that surplus value becomes progressively more scarce can't be demonstrated in the context of the appropriate empirically motivated Walrasian model. Gil replies: I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25 analysis of the general law of capitalist accumulation, to the effect that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation. (This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.) But I don't see why anyone has to venture into the hidden mode of production to yield *this* particular point. which point exactly? the point in the excised paragraph above about the primordial source of capital? Yes, necessarily, since it's equivalent to the point I answered explicitly. For example, Marx's argument holds if it's true that the only funds for accumulation come from the retained earnings of capitalists. This result could certainly be generated by the appropriate (and empirically motivated) Walrasian intertemporal model. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. How do you explain persistent scarcity? What do you mean by scarcity? Re the second question, you first: what did you mean by the phrase progressively more scarce in the paragraph you appended at the top of your post? It's likely we mean very much the same thing by this term. The first question is not at issue. What *is* at issue is whether the appropriate explanation can be couched in Walrasian terms. In your post 23776, you suggested it could not be. You refer at some point to capital constrained equilibrium--is this a well understood defintion of scarcity to the economic theorists on the list? Are these questions taken up in your formal reply to which Roberto V has referred? I think so, but you'd have to ask the other economic theorists on the list re the first question. On the second, yes. By the way, what do you make of Keynes' argument about the relationship between the declining marginal efficiency of capital as capital becomes less scarce though not necessarily less physical productive? What is the connection between the scarcity to which you refer and Keynes' nebulous idea of capital scarcity (or the lack thereof)? Re the second question, roughly speaking, a condition of capital scarcity implies the marginal efficiency of capital is strictly positive. On the first question, I suspect the distinction Keynes is alluding to involves the difference between *physical* and *revenue* productivity. An investment may lead to a new machine being built, but not necessarily to any money being made from the use of the new machine. I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. I am not suggesting a necessary connection. If there is no necessary reason to refer to the hidden mode of production in discussing reasons for persistent capital scarcity, then I believe I've answered your criticism of the Walrasian framework that prompted this exchange. Exactly. And *given* such socially-determined differences [in time preferences--rb], I show that one can account for the persistence of capitalist exploitation. Well, this very concept of time preferences surely needs unpacking. For some purposes, at least, I would surely agree. Gil
Re: Stock Market Prices
Does anyone know where can I find FREE data on _historical_ stock market prices? That is, for both individual stocks and variable aggregates (like DJ Industrial average). I know of CRSP(http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/research/crsp/), but they charge $1,000 for their data. Dogs. Thanks for any help. Eric Nilsson Try http://finance.yahoo.com They have lots of free data. For example DJ average is here: http://table.finance.yahoo.com/k?s=^djig=d Sorry for posting this to the list, I don't have Eric's e-mail address. Best, Sabri
Growth ahead...
from the March 13, 2002 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0313/p01s01-usec.html Economy in sudden acceleration The poll's economic optimism index jumped to a strongly positive 62.9 as Americans eye a rebound. By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor In not much more than a week, perceptions of the US economy have shifted decidedly, from glimmers of recovery to visions of clear-cut growth. Acceleration is the trend from the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange to the factory floors of General Motors. The stock market has rediscovered the word up. Unemployment edged downward last month, defying most forecasts. And consumer confidence rose solidly yesterday in a new Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll. Debate among economists has shifted from when a recovery will begin to how strong it will be. A few even question whether the US really had a recession last year. (Only in the third quarter did the economy actually shrink.) And while some forecasters say heavy debts could restrain America's high-spirited consumers, others talk of full-fledged 5 percent growth. The underlying trend of the economy is extremely positive, says Brian Wesbury, chief economist of a Chicago brokerage firm. It could be another 10-year expansion. Mr. Wesbury had been saying recovery would be slow in the first half and strong in the second. Now he predicts a strong recovery for the entire year, possibly above 4 percent. Particularly encouraging, Wesbury says, are numbers showing an upturn in the hard-hit manufacturing sector. Consumers, too, sense better times ahead. The Monitor/TIPP poll, conducted over the weekend, shows a sharp jump in its index of economic optimism, which jumped to 62.9 from 60.4 in February and from a low of 52.1 in a poll completed Sept. 9. Economic confidence is sweeping the nation, across all regions, age groups, income levels, and party affiliations, says Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence that conducted the poll. The poll, which surveyed 921 Americans, is the first broad indicator of consumer confidence released each month. Economists have a similar cheerier view. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, for example, sounded notably more upbeat in Senate testimony last Thursday than he had in the House a week earlier. We have seen encouraging signs in recent days that underlying trends [in demand for goods and services] are strengthening, although the dimensions of the pickup remain uncertain, Mr. Greenspan said. Indeed, some say the economic engine could sputter as consumer spending maxes out. But for now, those gloomier economists can only apologize for missing the positive surprises. How could I be so stupid? asks an embarrassed Stephen Roach, chief economist in New York of Morgan Stanley in a Monday commentary. He still sees himself as the last living economist in America to talk of economic relapse later this year. A host of numbers lifted the outlook of the economists. Retail chains had their best month in two years in February, with sales rising 6 percent from a year earlier. Worker productivity continued its astonishing upsurge, rising at a 5.2 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2001. Economists generally agree on why the upturn is occurring. . The Fed cut interest rates 11 times last year, making many debts easier to finance and bolstering home construction. . Washington has conducted a stimulative fiscal policy. Within a year, the federal budget has moved from a surplus of $255 billion to a small deficit (or tiny surplus). Extra spending on national security has helped boost economic output. The passage by Congress of an economic-stimulus package last week is generally seen as late, but an added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance will help maintain the spending of the unemployed. . Consumers kept up a buying spree. We continue to do a great job of living beyond our means, says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard Poor's. Consumers keep buying cars and furniture, despite record debt levels and layoffs. Most economists figure on the economic pace stepping up as the year moves forward. But Susan Hickok, chief economist at Prudential Economics in Newark, N.J., expects the Fed to start raising interest rates as early as May to keep the recovery from heating up so much that inflation could restart. Ms. Hickock has been forecasting a 5 percent pace of recovery for months, far above the average view. A key measure of the nation's money supply, known as M2, stands 10 percent above what it was a year ago. That is considered rapid growth. Money is the fuel for economic growth. Too much of it, though, can fuel inflation rather than real growth. Hickok suspects the Fed will gradually raise the federal funds rate, the rate at which banks loan money overnight to other banks, from 1.75 percent to 4 percent. That rate she describes as normal with inflation at 2 percent. But for now, optimism reigns.
Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Continuing the discussion with Charles. Fast forward to... CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, surplus value and capital are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of popup in one's mind) GS:No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit. As far as I can tell, capital in the passage I cited above is shorthand for the transformation of money into capital, a phrase that Marx uses in the passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite. Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses the transformation of money into capital as a corollary of creation of surplus value--compare, for example, his usage of surplus value at the top of p. 268 and the near-parallel use of transformation of money into capital near the bottom. ^^^ CB: Page 268 : Is that in Chapter 5 ? Yes, the penultimate page of Ch. 5 in the Penguin or Vintage edition. I hesitate, because it seems that the creation of surplus value is in production. I have more that idea that in M-C...P...C'-M', the surplus-values are created at P. The transformations of money into capital occurs at M-C and then again at M'-C'', no ? As I read Marx, although the creation of surplus value *requires* the production of new value, surplus value literally does not exist--is not created-- until the *completion* of the circuit of capital bracketing the P in your expression above. In other words, at the step P...C' in your expression, surplus value does not yet exist. Consequently, the creation of surplus value at least implies the transformation of money into capital. Foundation for these claims: In Chapter 4, Marx defines surplus value as the increment (delta M = M' minus M) arising from the circuit of capital, insofar as this increment corresponds to the valorization [Verwertung, Marx's coinage] of the value originally advanced. (pp 251-2). To me, this means that by definition the creation of surplus value involves something more than just production of new commodities. [Notice, for example, that he didn't define surplus value as (delta C = C' minus C).] This view is corroborated in Marx's discussion near the end of Chapter 5, when he asks rhetorically But can surplus-value originate [note the verb!--GS] anywhere else than in circulation...? and adds The commodity-owner can create value by his labour, but he cannot create values which can valorize themselves. But then it is incorrect to assert that the creation of surplus value is in production. The creation of surplus value is in production *and* circulation. Fast forward... GS: No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that price-value disparities are not sufficient to explain the existence of surplus value. But he makes no demonstration one way or the other concerning the claim price-value disparities are not necessary for the existence of surplus value, leaving open the possibility that they *might* be necessary, at least under some conditions. Since no claim has been made about necessity, one cannot validly infer that price-value disparities are incidental to the existence of surplus value, as Marx does in the conclusion of Chapter 5. If A is necessary for B, then it is certainly not incidental to B, whether or not it's sufficient for B. ^^^ CB: OK ,so Marx says and demonstrates that they are not sufficient, but doesn't address whether they are necessary, so they might be necessary. To say price-value disparities are a necessary condition of surplus-value would be to say surplus value implies ( in the sense of modus ponens) price-value disparities, correct ? For at least some instance of the general formula of capital M--C--M', yes. Not price-value disparities, not surplus value. And in such a case , we would not say that price-value disparities are incidental to surplus-value. Is that what you are saying ? Your statement is certainly true, but I'm actually saying something more basic: since Marx does not even consider the claim not price value disparities, not surplus value in his Chapter 5 argument, his inference price value disparities are incidental to surplus-value cannot be entailed by that argument. He's asserted a conclusion that does not follow logically from his premises.
RE: Growth ahead...
what do you expect from such a big cut in interest rates (during 2001)? It shouldn't surpise anyone that this stimulates the economy. However, it is notable that most of the stimulus is in housing and services and is based on increased consumer debt. How much more can US consumers afford to see their debt/income ratios rise? and how much more can the US avoid over-building in the housing industry? and how more can the Fed prop the stock market's price/earnings ratio up, preventing rich consumers' assets from falling? As I've said before, this looks a lot like a W-shaped recession. A lot of the optimism comes from extrapolating the first upward movement of the W into the future, ignoring the second downward movement that as a side-effect would encourage people and corporations to move toward having reasonable balance sheets, allowing the second upward movement to happen several years from now (assuming that the US doesn't get stuck in a Japanese-style L-shaped situation). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23934] Growth ahead... from the March 13, 2002 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0313/p01s01-usec.html Economy in sudden acceleration The poll's economic optimism index jumped to a strongly positive 62.9 as Americans eye a rebound. By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor In not much more than a week, perceptions of the US economy have shifted decidedly, from glimmers of recovery to visions of clear-cut growth. Acceleration is the trend from the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange to the factory floors of General Motors. The stock market has rediscovered the word up. Unemployment edged downward last month, defying most forecasts. And consumer confidence rose solidly yesterday in a new Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll. Debate among economists has shifted from when a recovery will begin to how strong it will be. A few even question whether the US really had a recession last year. (Only in the third quarter did the economy actually shrink.) And while some forecasters say heavy debts could restrain America's high-spirited consumers, others talk of full-fledged 5 percent growth. The underlying trend of the economy is extremely positive, says Brian Wesbury, chief economist of a Chicago brokerage firm. It could be another 10-year expansion. Mr. Wesbury had been saying recovery would be slow in the first half and strong in the second. Now he predicts a strong recovery for the entire year, possibly above 4 percent. Particularly encouraging, Wesbury says, are numbers showing an upturn in the hard-hit manufacturing sector. Consumers, too, sense better times ahead. The Monitor/TIPP poll, conducted over the weekend, shows a sharp jump in its index of economic optimism, which jumped to 62.9 from 60.4 in February and from a low of 52.1 in a poll completed Sept. 9. Economic confidence is sweeping the nation, across all regions, age groups, income levels, and party affiliations, says Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence that conducted the poll. The poll, which surveyed 921 Americans, is the first broad indicator of consumer confidence released each month. Economists have a similar cheerier view. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, for example, sounded notably more upbeat in Senate testimony last Thursday than he had in the House a week earlier. We have seen encouraging signs in recent days that underlying trends [in demand for goods and services] are strengthening, although the dimensions of the pickup remain uncertain, Mr. Greenspan said. Indeed, some say the economic engine could sputter as consumer spending maxes out. But for now, those gloomier economists can only apologize for missing the positive surprises. How could I be so stupid? asks an embarrassed Stephen Roach, chief economist in New York of Morgan Stanley in a Monday commentary. He still sees himself as the last living economist in America to talk of economic relapse later this year. A host of numbers lifted the outlook of the economists. Retail chains had their best month in two years in February, with sales rising 6 percent from a year earlier. Worker productivity continued its astonishing upsurge, rising at a 5.2 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2001. Economists generally agree on why the upturn is occurring. . The Fed cut interest rates 11 times last year, making many debts easier to finance and bolstering home construction. . Washington has conducted a stimulative fiscal policy. Within a year, the federal budget has moved from a surplus of $255 billion to a small deficit (or tiny surplus). Extra spending on national security has helped boost economic output.
RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Drewk, I'll have to admit I have perused a couple of your papers on the web and I'm interested in understanding your argument(s). I have looked at some of your and your colleagues stuff in the past but I have not really devoted myself to a careful study. I am always interested in anything that can help me understand Marx--and thus capitalism, as well as some other things--better. Pardon my slowness, but can you give me a baby explanation of the negative product issues again. When you say that 10 of A are produced and workers consume 5 and 8 are used up so that the net product is -3, I'm assuming the deficit was possible because there was an already existing stock of A, right? But it would seem that either you don't include those three used up this period that were produced in the previous period OR you include all of the stock of A that pre-existed in your net calculation--either confine the calculation to that produced in this period or include all periods. Again, I apologize for what probably seems like a question from an intro student, but I want to understand this point, which seems like one central to the temporal view. mat
W press conference
Anyone listen to Ws press conference? He kept saying nucular for nuclear. He also said commiserate with when it seemed like he was trying to say consistent with.
Re: W press conference
Forstater, Mathew wrote: Anyone listen to W?s press conference? He kept saying ?nucular? for nuclear. He also said ?commiserate with? when it seemed like he was trying to say ?consistent with?. probably intended: commensurate with? --ravi
RE: W press conference
Anyone listen to W's press conference? He kept saying nucular for nuclear. That tradition was started by Eisenhower. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roemer and Exploitation
Gil writes: On the first question, I suspect the distinction Keynes is alluding to involves the difference between *physical* and *revenue* productivity. OK, I get that An investment may lead to a new machine being built, but not necessarily to any money being made from the use of the new machine. But how is this possible if the new machine is as, if not more, productive in physical terms than the extant machinery? Keynes does not seem to applying a Ricardian diminishing returns principle to the capital stock, right? So how does he explain the divergence between physical and revenue productivity? Rakesh writes I also had written the following on which Gil did not comment: To say that additional capital is increasingly in short supply vis a vis the new and displaced laboring population as accumulation progresses only means that in the course of accumulation the primordial source of this capital, surplus value, becomes progressively more scarce, too small, in relation to the already accumulated mass of capital I skipped this because my response would have been redundant: i.e., whether or not surplus value becomes progressively more scarce...in relation to the already accumulated mass of capital has no particular relation one way or another to the question of whether labor is subsumed under capital, and thus no particular reason to venture into the hidden abode of production. Again, there's no reason to think that the possibility that surplus value becomes progressively more scarce can't be demonstrated in the context of the appropriate empirically motivated Walrasian model. Gil, there is no connection between the hypothesis of the progressive relative scarcity of sv--the primordial source of new capital--and Marx's theory of the dynamics of (relative) surplus value production? Gil replies: I rid, I mean read, this statement as corresponding to Marx's KI/25 analysis of the general law of capitalist accumulation, to the effect that any rise in wages above subsistence due to demand pressures from capital accumulation is necessarily self-limiting, since the resulting loss in profit leads to a corresponding reduction in the rate of accumulation. (This self-limitation is further reinforced by tendentially rising OCC.) But I don't see why anyone has to venture into the hidden mode of production to yield *this* particular point. which point exactly? the point in the excised paragraph above about the primordial source of capital? Yes, necessarily, since it's equivalent to the point I answered explicitly. darn, we're nearing our impasse again. How do you explain persistent scarcity? What do you mean by scarcity? Re the second question, you first: what did you mean by the phrase progressively more scarce in the paragraph you appended at the top of your post? It's likely we mean very much the same thing by this term. The first question is not at issue. What *is* at issue is whether the appropriate explanation can be couched in Walrasian terms. In your post 23776, you suggested it could not be. You refer at some point to capital constrained equilibrium--is this a well understood defintion of scarcity to the economic theorists on the list? Are these questions taken up in your formal reply to which Roberto V has referred? I think so, but you'd have to ask the other economic theorists on the list re the first question. On the second, yes. I'll await Roberto V's reply to you. By the way, what do you make of Keynes' argument about the relationship between the declining marginal efficiency of capital as capital becomes less scarce though not necessarily less physical productive? What is the connection between the scarcity to which you refer and Keynes' nebulous idea of capital scarcity (or the lack thereof)? Re the second question, roughly speaking, a condition of capital scarcity implies the marginal efficiency of capital is strictly positive. Of course if capital were not scare, then various forms of state coercion could still a positive prospective yield on capital, no? I took this issue up in my response to Roberto Veneziani when I suggested there was no necessary connection between the economic conditions leading to the subsumption of labor under capital (i.e., capital's reign over the hidden mode of production and those capable of explaining the persistent scarcity of capital in the face of capital accumulation. I am not suggesting a necessary connection. If there is no necessary reason to refer to the hidden mode of production in discussing reasons for persistent capital scarcity, then I believe I've answered your criticism of the Walrasian framework that prompted this exchange. I think Marx's theory of accumulation provides a a highly plausible explanation for the persistence of scarce DOPA. I don't understand your explanation for said persistence in the course of both extensive and intensive capital accumulation. Rakesh
Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it): And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? Rakesh ps Andrew I'll copy your paper at the library since I won't be able to read it.
Re: W press conference
I am about 500 PENL msgs behind in my reading, so I don't know whether it has already been discussed, but there is something much more important than whether Shrub can speak. Everybody has known for a long time he can't speak English (or any other language) very well. But he HAS had the Marines engaged in urban exercises in Little Rock, AK and other places, which has included posting snipers, stopping and seaching cars, searching houses, etc. It is unconstituional to use the military for domestic policing. He has also ordered the Pentagon to develop strategies for the first use of nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. It is pretty irrelevant whether he can pronounce nuclear correctly as he orders the use of these weapons. Doug Orr --- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:19:58 -0600 From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23938] W press conference Anyone listen to W's press conference? He kept saying nucular for nuclear. He also said commiserate with when it seemed like he was trying to say consistent with.
Re: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus valueand profit
On 2002.03.14 02:32 AM, Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew writes: A physical surplus and the physical surplus mean exactly the same thing in this context. ok I do not deny, but affirm that with rising productivity there is indeed some rough sense in which we can say that [a falling] mass of surplus value [corresponds to] a greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods. This is the ESSENCE of anti-physicalism. ok but then what are the consequences on accumulation from this greater physical quantity of means of production and wage goods? Are you in fact keeping both the value and the use value or physical dimensions in mind when analyzing the accumulation process? I think you have bent the stick too far in the value direction. A rough sense is fine for many purposes, but not for looking at whether surplus-labor is the sole source of profit. ok. Again I have not read your paper, and cannot assess your claims. My knowledge of the Fundamental Marxian Theory derives from Catephores' book. RB What is physical surplus value? Surplus value have three forms. Firstly money-form,secondly, commodity-form,and thirdly material. i.e. Means of production-form.
Japan
The Japan Times: March 14, 2002 EDITORIAL Thursday, March 14, 2002 JAPANESE DISTORTIONS A demand-starved economy By GREGORY CLARK What do you do if you are Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and the structural reform policies you have been advocating with tight lips and a steely gaze are now hit by the deflation you have caused? Simple. You do an about-face and tell the world with tight lips and a steely gaze that you are now absolutely determined to fight the deflation. It is a good example of what they call match-pump in Japanese. First you start the fire. Then you claim kudos for trying to douse the flames. Japan's light-headed media will probably go along with it all. You will also continue to receive cheers from Western pundits and their Japanese acolytes eager to prove that the stock-market upturn sparked by your about-turn as well as signs of U.S. economic recovery somehow vindicate your original prodeflation policies. What causes this shambles in economic thinking? Dominance of Reaganite/Thatcherite supply-side economic theories is one reason. Another is failure to realize how Japan's demand-starved economy differs completely from our demand-saturated Western, mainly Anglo-Saxon, economies. Western norms say that public sector debt of 700 trillion yen, plus some many-trillion yen of bad bank loans, adds up to economic disaster. But if personal financial assets in Japan total an enormous 1.5 quadrillion yen yen, then a large public debt is inevitable. It could even be desirable at times. As for the bad loans, what this means mainly is that surplus funds sloshing around in the economy have moved out of the hands of the naive or the stupid (mainly bankers) and into the hands of smarter Japanese (many criminally minded). Many of the funds still exist, buried in that 1.5 quadrillion yen. Get the economy back on track and much of it could well return, with a rush. The pundits seem quite unable to focus in on that 1.5 quadrillion yen figure. It is as if an iceberg suddenly appeared in Tokyo Bay and we were all supposed to assume that a mountain of ice bobbing up and down below Rainbow Bridge was just an accident of nature. No other economy has had to confront this kind of phenomenon. If our Western economists and pundits were serious about their profession, they would be out there examining every nook and cranny of the iceberg to find out how and why it got to be there and its implications for future economic theory. Instead, most seem to assume that its presence simply proves a lack of skill in controlling the Tokyo waterways. Supply-side economists have become obsessed with what they see as the problem of improving the efficiencies in the working of economies. They assume the demand needed to make the economy work in the first place can be taken for granted. To switch metaphors, they are like mechanics who spend all their time tinkering with an engine to make it perform better, and forget about the need for gasoline to run the engine. And when they do discover the lack of gas, they blame that, too, on engine inefficiencies. The U.S. economic engine probably has as many, if not more, inefficiencies as Japan's -- political waste and corruption, the Enron scandal, nonproductive spending on the military, the power of the mafia, etc. But the engine is powered by the high octane of never-ending demand from U.S. consumers. The U.S. problem in the past has been excessive octane, forcing overheating and cutbacks. Japan's problem is the chronic lack of demand to fuel its economy. That has little to do with inefficiencies in the economy itself. It is due mainly to a value system that works against the lifestyle and class-status spending so crucial to keeping Western economies turning over. To the extent the so-called Koizumi structural reforms cut public demand, they simply add to the problem rather than help with a solution. One proof of the confusion over Japan's economy is the way the Western financial media have equated Japan's problems with those of Argentina. The two situations could not be more different. Argentine debt is owed mainly to foreigners. Decades of belt-tightening will be needed before those Latin American spendthrifts can save enough to pay off that debt. Japanese debt is owed almost entirely to Japanese and is due to excessive saving. Belt-untightening could solve that problem overnight -- if only Koizumi, the pundits and the acolytes could be made to realize it. For the past 30 years -- ever since the basic demands of most Japanese consumers were satisfied by the high growth boom that ended in the early 1970s -- Japan's economy has been distorted by this problem of inadequate consumer demand. In the past, it got round the problem by relying on foreign demand, in the form of export surpluses, and by the never-ending speculative boom in shares and land. Both these supports for the economy have now ended. Japan needs to find some new and more sensible way to fill the gap caused by
On Roemer
MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10, OHATI, MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] criticism of Roemer I don$B!G(Jt konw details of Roemer$B!G(Js argument. I only read his article $B!H(J Anti-Hayekian manifesto$B!I(J in $B!H(J New Left Review 211/1995) . But fundamental thought of Roemer is expressed in the article, I think. So firstly I summarize this article. In this artcle he critisize Stiglitz about his criticism on market socialism which is justified by Kenneth Arrow and Gerald Debreu whose father is Walras. Roemer himself defends Walras. I don$B!G(Jt examine criticism of Stigliz by Roemer. Here only I examine Roemer$B!G(Js proposal on market socialism. He says that$B!I(JI believe the Walrasian model can be used as a tool yo explore the income-distributional consequences of market-socialist proposals...because an actual market-socialist economy would suffer from market failures, one cannot claim that its equilibrium would be Pareto-efficent. But the salient question is, rather, can one create ana economy that is about as efficient as capitalism, yet has qualitatively better distributional properties? $B!H(J Question1; what is relation between income and distribution? and what is the form of income and distribution? In reality, income and distribution are both side of same medal. Income is a form seen from worker, and distribution is a form seen from firm. If so, problem is form of income. He says $B!H(JThe relation between employer and employee is one of pricipal and agent. The principal wants a certain job performed, which she must delegate to an agent, whom she cannot perfectly monitor. The agent has objectives different from the principal$B!G(Js(for instance, not to perform work at a stressful rate). In this situaiton, it may be optimal for the principal to offer a wage greater than the market-clearing wage; for this would give the agent a reason to want to keep the job, and hence to work hard, so as to assure not being caught shirking(If the wage were market-clearing, presumably a dismissed worker could instantly find another job at the same wage) Thus, payment of a wage above the market-clearing level can increase the $B!H(Jefficiency$B!I(Jof the worker;such wages have come to be known as efficiency wages$B!I(J From this, we can understand that his $B!H(Jincome$B!I(J is wage form and his $B!H(J efficiency wage $B!H(J means that if worker receive more wage, worker may work $B!H(J efficietly$B!I(J in other word, efficient for principal. But wage system is characteristic form of payment of capitalist society. In this capitalist society $B!H(Jthe purchase of labour-power for a fixed period is the prelude to the process of production; and this prelude is constantly repeated when the stipulated term comes to an end, when a definite period of production, such as a week or a month, has elapsed. But the labourer is not paid until after he has expended his labour-power, and realised in commodities not only its value, but surplus-value. He has, therefore, produced not only surplus-value, which we for the present regard as a fund to meet the private consumption of the capitalist, but he has also produced, before it flows back to him in the shape of wages, the fund out of which he himself is paid, the variable capital; and his employment lasts only so long as he continues to reproduce this fund. Hence, that formula of the economists, referred to in Chapter 18, which represents wages as a share in the product itself. [2] What flows back to the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion of the product that is continuously reproduced by him. The capitalist, it is true, pays him in money, but this money is merely the transmuted form of the product of his labour. While he is converting a-portion of the means of production into products, a portion of his former product is being turned into money. It is his labour of last week, or of last year, that pays for his labour-power this week or this year. The illusion begotten by the intervention of money vanishes immediately, if, instead of taking a single capitalist and a single labourer, we take the class of capitalists and the class of labourers as a whole. The capitalist class is constantly giving to the labouring class order-notes, in the form of money, on a portion of the commodities produced by the latter and appropriated by the former. The labourers give these order-notes back just as constantly to the capitalist class, and in this way get their share of their own product. The transaction is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the commodity.$B!I(J(From Capital) Thus wage receive form of money. And we can understand his $B!H(J distribution $B!H(J also receive money-form. And his $B!H(J efficiency$B!I(J means in reality increasing surplus value. If so, where is his $B!H(Jmarket-socialism$B!I(J differ from capitalist system? He says $B!H(J I have suggested a
RE: RE: RE: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
Mat: I have perused a couple of your papers on the web The published stuff is usually better in order to gain a basic understanding of the issues from the ground up. For economists who understand the technicalities of some of the other interpretations, the piece I'd recommend one reads first is A Temporal Single-system Interpretation of Marx's Value Theory, published in ROPE 11:1, in 1999. Mat: Pardon my slowness, I don't think you're slow at all. Mat: but can you give me a baby explanation of the negative product issues again. When you say that 10 of A are produced and workers consume 5 and 8 are used up so that the net product is -3, I'm assuming the deficit was possible because there was an already existing stock of A, right? There's an already existing stock in any case. If workers eat their 5 units before the 10 are produced, then the period must have started with a stock of at least 13 units, 5 + 8. Assume that it was 13 units. Then since only 10 units are produced, the end-of-period stock is 3 units less than the start of period stock. That's the negative physical surplus of A, - 3 units. Alternatively it is gross output minus consumed input minus physical wages. The economy cannot *reproduce* itself next period, using the *same* technology, on the same scale, without a *reserve* stock of at least 3 units of A. In other words, to have reproduction on the same or larger scale without technical change, the initial stock of A would have to be at least 16 units, not 13. To anticipate what might be coming down the line, the following kind of thing is quite possible. During even-numbered minutes, 10 units of A are produced, while 12 units are used up, and 15 units of B are produced, while 8 units are used up. During odd-numbered minutes, it is the opposite: 15 units of A are produced, while 8 units are used up, and 10 units of B are produced, while 12 units are used up. So EVERY minute -- always -- there's a NEGATIVE net product of one good. This is so even though over each two-minute span, 25 units of each good is produced while only 20 units is used up, and thus the economy can grow over time without drawing down stocks to zero. But it would seem that either you don't include those three used up this period that were produced in the previous period OR you include all of the stock of A that pre-existed in your net calculation--either confine the calculation to that produced in this period or include all periods. I'm not sure I understand this. You can compute the net product (actually, physical surplus, since physical wages are also deducted) in the top example either as end-of-period stock minus start-of-period stock, or, equivalently, as gross output minus used up input minus physical wages. The basic relations are end-of-period stock = start-of-period stock - consumed input - physical wages + gross output net product = gross product - consumed input physical surplus = net product - physical wages I hope this helps. If not, catch me in Boston and I'll try again. Drewk
RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly: Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol. III if I had time.) Such prices have theoretical interest to me. They do not exert any force -- they are the outcome of the workings of various forces. Real magnitudes determine derivative magnitudes like averages, not v.v. All of this has zip to do with the equilibrium -- stationary -- prices and the associated equilibrium profit rate of simultaneism that we critique. Do not confuse the two. The latter is of no interest whatsoever. I have no position on the rest. I'd need to study the question carefully. Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23942] Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Since Andrew said he wasn't getting all his incoming messages, I shall repost the following questions (of course if John E or Manuel or Gary or Mat has answers, I would appreciate it): And one can reply: well didn't Marx himself make such an assumption of classical natural or equilibrium prices in his own reproduction schemes and transformation analyses? Do equilibrium prices not exert *any* force at *any* point in the course of capital accumulation or the business cycle? Are they of *no* theoretical interest *whatsoever*? Isn't it towards an equilibrium point based on the new adopted technology that the economy is moving in Schumpeter's recession phase of the cycle? Or do Andrew and Alan Freeman reject this Schumpeterian assumption just as it is rejected by Alan's father Chris Freeman, perhaps the leading economic student of science and technology in second half of the 20th century? Rakesh ps Andrew I'll copy your paper at the library since I won't be able to read it.
RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. Andrew Kliman
Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I don't have much energy for disputes now. A recent basketball injury has cause the loss of a wisdom tooth today. Please, I think that Mat is correct. The idea of marxists intentionally supressing marxism does not seem realistic to me. There are marxists whose marxism seems ill-founded to me and whose ideas have consequences of which I disapprove, but I cannot think of any marxist who is supressing marxism. We should drop this line. Only a few people have been involved and some valuable members have dropped off in disgust. So, let's call a halt to this. Also, the debate between Charles and Gil does not seem to be going anywhere. Forstater, Mathew wrote: Drewk, you seem to think that proof is something everyone agrees on. One person's proof is another's obfuscation, suppression, etc., as you yourself admit. I don't know the details of the history of your interaction with other points of view, so I don't know whether others have totally ignored your disproofs or not. Maybe they have. My experience is that these kinds of disagreements are usually based on methodological issues, philosophical issues, differences in emphases, and the like, so that usually, though not always, people more or less make sense within their own framework. There are exceptions, of course. Anyway, if these threads are intended to get people out to your sessions at the Easterns, like the one with Gary Mongiovi presenting the Sraffian critique of your work, and you and Alan Freeman responding, then it's worked for me. I'll be there. Mat -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23914] RE: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit I agree that Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. So how do we decide in a particular case whether it *is* a suppression of the truth? (I leave aside the issue of motives.) It is one thing to claim to prove error or internal inconsistency when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. None of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? It is one thing to claim to that one can jettison Marx's own value theory, and still hold that surplus-labor is the sole source of profit, when one can prove it. It is another thing to claim it when one cannot. When the alleged proofs of this proposition have been disproved and one *continues* to claim it, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. When one does not retract the falsified proofs in the face of disproof, that is clearly an instance of suppression and clearly an ideological attack. Again, none of this has anything to do with disagreement. Am I right or not? If not, why not? Andrew Kliman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23905] Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit This is precisely right. This is why it is suppression of Marx -- his theory SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED. This is what people like Roemer et al. say, and why it is utterly disingenuous to say that they were/are just expressing a different viewpoint. Andrew Kliman That's right, Andrew. We all know you have correctly understood Marx, and we grasp clearly what your perspective, I mean his perspective is, and we know that it id true. But because we are in league with Satan, wesupress it. I mean, for heaven's sake, be serious. Not all disagreement is maliciously motivated attempt to suppress the truth. I am sure that Roemer and Gil and Roberto (and me) do our best to understand Marx, among other things, but sometimes that is not good enough. With Roemer, clearly it isn't. Gil's another story. And moreover we may just honestly disgree both with your reading as toits accuracy as a reading of Marx, and as to its adequacy to the world. We can do these things without suppressing anything. Roemer et al would be delighted to have Marx's view applied, also explained. Of course we still might disagree. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Please, if anyone wants to carry on with this discussion, let's do it off list. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:10:13PM -0500, Drewk wrote: Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arline Jim Prigoff Presentation on World Social Forum @ Sacto. Marxist School
March 13, 2002 News Release For more information: Call John Rowntree, (916) 446-1758 P.O. Box 160406 Sacramento, CA 95816 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.marxistschool.org Arline and Jim Prigoff to Deliver Presentation on the World Social Forum at the Marxist School of Sacramento Arline and Jim Prigoff will deliver a presentation titled Report on the 2002 World Social Forum in Brazil on Thursday, March 21 at 7 p.m. in the Green Room at the Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento. The Prigoffs slide presentation and discussion is part of the Point of View: Challenging Perspectives on Current Issues speaker series sponsored by the Marxist School of Sacramento. The Prigoffs recently attended the 2002 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. There, people from around the world met to discuss the creation of a global movement for economic and social justice, peace, and protection of the earth. Arline Prigoff, Ph.D. is an author, community activist and professor of social work at California State University, Sacramento. Jim Prigoff is an art historian, author and photographer of public art. This event is free and open to the public. Donations are welcome. For more information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758. ### _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: marx's proof regarding surplusvalue and profit
I'm not sure what the below is in response to, but briefly: Andrew, If you are going to address me, please use my name at some point. Please do not use the passive voice as Jim D in replying to one of claims. It has been asserted that... For example, you could have said I'm not sure what Rakesh [or Bhandari] is responding to below, but briefly.. Devine could have said: It is asserted *by Bhandari* that Fred's criticism of me has echoes of the young Strachey's criticism of Robinson, but this assertion is baseless. At the very least, claims should remain tied to authors for the purposes of clarity. Secondly, please do not give me orders most especially when they are opaque. We Marxists should not be in the business of bossing people around. You order me not to confuse classical equilibrium prices with the simultaneist equilibrium stationary prices. But you don't tell me what the difference is and you don't prove that Marx does not use the latter. So you have VERY OBNOXIOUSLY given me an order without clarifying what it is or why I should heed it. Thirdly, I think your point that classical equilibrium prices are not themselves a force but a resultant of forces is valuable, though I need to think about it. It seems that the whole discussion is shot through with metaphors from physics. Fourthly, I am not clear as to what classical equilibrium prices are; my reading of Ricardo does not suggest to me that he meant by them what many interpreters mean by them; my reading of Marx suggests that his price theory is much more dynamic than Ricardo's, so it is not obvious to me that Marx recognized the existence of classical equilibrium prices. Rakesh Marx generally thought that market prices tend to fluctuate around equal-profit rate prices -- classical equilibrium prices. (I would dispute your reading of the end of Vol. II and Ch. 9 of Vol. III if I had time.) Such prices have theoretical interest to me. They do not exert any force -- they are the outcome of the workings of various forces. Real magnitudes determine derivative magnitudes like averages, not v.v. All of this has zip to do with the equilibrium -- stationary -- prices and the associated equilibrium profit rate of simultaneism that we critique. Do not confuse the two. The latter is of no interest whatsoever. This is a very strong claim, and you give me no reasoning or no citation where the reasoning behind this very strong conclusion can be found. Rakesh I have no position on the rest. I'd need to study the question carefully. Andrew Kliman
Re: Re: Marx's Proof
In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 1:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Ernst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doug, I think everything is a bit off the cuff here and perhaps misses what might be important. Among other things you wrote: Not getting value theory right has inhibited just what political or intellectual progress exactly? Yet this is a good question. Let me suggest some possible answers: 1. We, radicals, have little sense of how technical change takes place in capitalist society. That is, the common interpretation of Marx is that technical change is labor displacing at all costs. Laibman goes as far as to say that capitalists innovate in a Rube Goldberg fashion. That is, labor replacing technical change takes place at all costs. That is what ortho Marxism has held for over a century. I doubt this is true and do not impute that view to anyone, save David, in particular. So what? Seems to me that anyone with this view could easily grab hold of the idea that an alternative to capitalism could exist side by side with a society growing in such Rube Goldberg fashion. 2. Within traditional approaches to Marx as well as in standard eco thought, little if any attention is paid to moral depreciation. Indeed, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this type of depreciation disappear as one simultaneously values inputs and outputs. Thus, in theory, we can create situations in which a capitalist invests $100, ends up with $20 and have a rising rate of profit. The usual understanding of Marx's concept of valuation incorporate this absurd possibility. Put simply, using Marx's concept of value, we should be able to grasp how technical changes take place in capitalism and what are the consequent changes in valuation. If we can't, we should move on to something else. I do not feel that seeking answers to this problem is a sub for activism nor do I find the concepts alienated. John In my opinion Marx repeatedly states that value is the amount of socially necessary labor in the production of commodites. Many understand this formula different. I accept it at face value because it makes sense to me. By technical changes in capital I understand this to mean technical changes in the forces of production. Marx gives a fairly good view of this process in Volume I of Capital, The General Law of capitalist accumulation, section 3 page 628. Technology changes on a continium from the dawn of the capitalist mode of production, up until this minute, reduce the amount of human labor needed in the production of the expanding world of commodities. That is to say a smaller magnitude of labor is needed to produce the same amount of commodites a previously existing magnitude of labor yielded. This affects how the total social capital is apportioned in the production process, with less of the total going to living labor in relationship to a larger magnitude being apportioned for machinery - dead labor. This impact the over all valuation of the living working class, which appears as increasingly larger sections of the population unable to sell their labor-power for enough wages to make ends meet. Melvin P
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value andprofit
Silence = suppression of Marx. Diversion = suppression of Marx. Sarcastic dismissal = suppression of Marx.. Andrew Kliman I do not see how these identities were arrived at. As general statements, I cannot imagine anything more absurd. At the very least, it seems to me that such equations easily read as an attempt to make critical, spirited enquiry into Marx or the very attempt to develop other radical traditions engender guilt and danger, but such an attempt will doubtless backfire by turning people away from any enquiry into Marx at all. Need to unsub again for awhile. Gil, if you respond on Keynes, I'll check the archive. Rakesh
Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Drewk wrote: Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my kill file who got too insistent that their arguments should be responded to or that others should read the articles they base their arguments on. On a maillist one responds to the posts that one chooses to respond to, pretty arbitrarily. Obligation of this sort belongs in the classroom. Carrol
Re: Re: RE: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
I agree with Carrol about the absurdity about expecting that all challenges must be answered, but I hope that the whole thread has stopped. On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:18:44PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: Drewk wrote: Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. That is not how maillists work or ought to work. I've added people to my kill file who got too insistent that their arguments should be responded to or that others should read the articles they base their arguments on. On a maillist one responds to the posts that one chooses to respond to, pretty arbitrarily. Obligation of this sort belongs in the classroom. Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Going nowhere?
[Was: Re PEN-L 23950, Re: Marx's proof regarding...] Michael writes, among other things, Also, the debate between Charles and Gil does not seem to be going anywhere. What? As you know, Michael, I've had plenty of experience with PEN-L debates that weren't going anywhere (and, being the debating type, may bear some responsibility for pursuing certain discussions past the point of useful return...nah), and from my standpoint our thread is clearly going somewhere, if carefully. At this point it can't even be called a debate, since the ground of the discussion is still being mapped out. Tell me that you don't think the issue is interesting (I do), tell me you find the discussion tedious and progress slow (I don't), but I don't see the basis for your suggestion that it isn't going anywhere. Kind of nice, actually, to have a discussion on Marx's theory that doesn't reduce to trading and parrying of accusations. Gil
Re: On Roemer/Value/Technical/Capital
In this, Roemer remains in the sphere of ownership, and forgets the sphere of production. For producing profits material production must be presumed. And for production, many firms must interact with each other and exchange material, means of production, or intermediate commodities. Can coupon work in these areas? Roemer considers only relation between citizen and firms on the sphere of ownership and forget the presumption of ownership, in other words, production. In capitalist society, wages are determined by the socially necessary amount labor required for the worker to reproduce himself. But Roemer does not determine the quantity of coupon citizen receives, nor what is required to receive such coupons - that is to say, what is the tradeoff. In addition, he does not clarify the relation between coupon and regular money. Roemer conception assumes the wage system. However, in the wage system workers receive part of the social product in the form of money, not coupons. So if he wants shares of the social product he must use money, not coupons. Because coupons do not have imminent value. One does not exchange his Sachen (commodity, money, and capital---In any English translation of Capital, Marx original words Sachen and Ding are both translated into thing but the two are different. Sachen means property occupied by people and Ding means merely physical matter. This confusion makes it difficult to understand the fetishism attached to commodity production under capitalist property relations) with things such as coupons which have no value. In sum, Roemer's market-socialism only may work on the sphere of ownership, and other area remains same as capitalist society. The starting point of modern socialism or communism presupposes collective revolutionary action aimed at abolishing Sachen and attaining liberty. Roemer forgets this revolutionary action and confine himself to considering phantom economic system. In reality, the communist movement is a process embracing various stages (boundaries)? And under which various economic system may coexist as the living expression of transition. Marx referred to the unfolding of this process as a revolutionary transitional period. Current world can be totally defined transitional period. So as alternative to money, LET, barter, or other exchange means already are used. Perhaps this is a sign of radical destruction of civil society. MIYACHI TATSUO (Unauthorized editing and translation by Melvin P.) The radical destruction of civil society is understood to mean the processes wherein society is increasingly severed from its foundation in the buying and selling of labor power. An increasing segment of the world working cannot sell their labor-power for enough wages to secure adequate supplies of food, clothing, water, shelter and other means of family reproduction. The source of value is human beings labor - sweat, blood, fiber, energy and daydreams. The nexus of commodity exchange is the amount of socially necessary labor that goes into their production. Profits come from surplus value - unpaid human labor. This value is bound up in and borne by commodities. The commodities must circulate, that is, they must be sold. If not the value in them cannot be realized and the capitalist will not profit from their production. Yet, a vast magnitude of profits is realized (materialized) from activity increasingly separate from the production of commodities and consequently surplus value. This is one side of society being torn from its foundation in the buying and selling of labor and provides the substance of a new qualitative configuration of capital and the working class as a component of capital. Herein resides the antagonism. Herein resides the boundary. An increasing magnitude of the world total social capital cannot be profitably deployed in the production of commodities on a world scale. That is the contradiction or fuller scope of crisis theory (quote, unquote, which has only unfolded with the advent of qualitatively new technologies. Human labor is rendered increasingly superfluous to the production of commodities as a fundamental feature of the transition period. At the center of the transition from one mold of production to another is the technological revolution. A measurable qualitative reconfiguration in the organic composition of capital has taken place. The massive growth of capital investing in values mode of expression, distinct from the production process is one such measurement. The transition and growth from the industrial reserve army of unemployed to a more than less mass of proletarians possessing labor-power than cannot be sold to secure necessary means of subsistence is another measurement. The basis for the determination of a new qualitative development in capital and the working class is outline by Marx in Volume 1 of capital. The distinctions on the basis of quantitative
marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit
Drewk wrote: Justin, Gil, Michael, Doug: I am still waiting for my questions and challenges to be answered. If you can refute me, do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Andrew, I haven't the energy or inclination to debate with you or Charles on the matter. I've read your work and learned from it, but I don't agree. I'm not an economist, I'm a practicing lawyer, I do econ on the side. I mainly thought about this stuff ages ago when I was a prof (stuill not an economist, I was a philosophy professor) and had the time to think about things that didn't interest me directly and I wasn't getting paid to do. I came to the conlusion that, so far as I could understand it, the Sraffan criqtique was about right, and it dovetailed with my own conclsuion that as far as I could see, you can say everything I wanted to say in Marx without value theory, That was not arrived at by an internal critique but by the experience of saying it without VT. I still am not taht interested in VT, but I'm not going to admit defeat; lots of people I respect, including Gil, seem to agree with me, and I will defer to them. If I was more interested, I'd try again. But I suspect that nonething anyone could say would sway you. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
