Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
>Shane writes in response to Justin: > >>A monopolist is able to get an above-average rate of return on its capital. >>Nonmonopolists (except, perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore >>receive a below-average return on their capital. > >This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that capitalists >enjoy "monopoly" (more accurately, "monopsony") wage-setting power in >markets for labor power due to the empirically relevant fact that workers >face significant costs of job search (this is a typical feature of search >models; see for example the survey article on monopsony in labor markets by >Boal and Ransom in the J. of Econ Lit, 1997). Then more monopsony power, >and thus more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any >other capitalist. Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more >surplus labor No. If one capitalist holds monopsony power over a significant group of workers it follows that the other capitalists, dealing with a smaller labor-power market, will have to pay "above-average" wages and thus settle for below-average profits. > >>The economic process >>determining these different returns to different capitals is a process of >>distributing the value of the total surplus product among the various >>claimants to that surplus value. Marx's "Law Of Value" applies to the >>aggregate surplus as produced. Because Marx defined "value" as >>a determinate quantity of labor time and "capital" as *capitalized* >>surplus value he was able to view the capitalist system as a dynamic >>entity subject to quantitatively determined "laws of motion" such >>as the "Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit" which >>has been shown both to be empirically true and to be a strict >>consequence of the fundamental social relationships defining a >>capitalist economic system. > >For what it's worth, I'd say the empirical relevance of this "law" remains >an open question, as does the sense in which it is a "strict conseqeuence >of the fundamental social relationships defining a capitalist system." If I failed to prove both points in my 1963 dissertation, please enlighten me on any defective points in my argument. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
At 03:04 PM 3/11/02 -0800, you wrote: >Shane [Mage] writes in response to Justin:>>A monopolist is able to get an >above-average rate of return on its capital. Nonmonopolists (except, >perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore receive a below-average return >on their capital.<< > >Gil writes:> This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that >capitalists enjoy "monopoly" (more accurately, "monopsony") wage-setting >power in markets for labor power< > >Shane Mage can talk for himself, but I think that it's a big mistake -- or >even a rhetorical bait and switch -- to suddenly change over to talking >about monoposony in labor-power markets. I read Shane as talking about >monopoly in product markets, not monopsony. I don't think it's a mistake, because in Chapter 5, where this issue arises, Marx makes no distinctions about *which* commodity markets he's talking about. If the argument holds for the expression of price-setting power in one commodity market, it should hold for the expression of price-setting power in *any* commodity market (including the commodity called "labor power"). > >(BTW, Marx wasn't familiar with the concept of monopsony as far as I can >tell. But he assumed at one point in volume III that it didn't apply, in >that he assumed that Smith's concept of compensating wage differentials did >apply and that the rate of surplus-value equalizes between sectors. True >monopsony is a microeconomic phenomenon which would cause the monopsonistic >industry to enjoy an above-average rate of surplus-value. In theory if the >monopsonist is large enough as part of the economy, it might tilt class >relations in favor of capital, raising the rate of surplus-value overall.) Yes, that's my point. >Gil continues: > ... due to the empirically relevant fact that workers face >significant costs of job search (...). Then more monopsony power, and thus >more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any other >capitalist. Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more surplus >labor.< > >You'd think that in a neoclassical world, the "capitalists" would also face >search costs in their efforts to hire employees. This would give the >employees who currently have jobs a little bit of monopoly power vis-a-vis >their employers. There's no reason in the neoclassical world for the >monopsony power of the employers to _a priori_ exceed the monopoly power of >the employees, so that we've got a indeterminate bilateral monopoly >situation. There's also no necessary grounds in neoclassical terms for insisting on bilateral search costs. The point here is theoretical possibility, not generality. >So there's no reason in the neoclassical world for workers to >perform more surplus-labor. There is, in the entirely neoclassical scenario of one-sided search costs. Again, the issue is about theoretical possibility, not generality. >But what if it's normal for job vacancies to be less in number than job >seekings, i.e., if there's Keynesian cyclical unemployment? In that case -- >where there is a non-neoclassical situation of persistent excess supply >(a.k.a. "reserve army") of labor-power, the workers would be at the >disadvantage that Gil refers to. I don't believe that "persistent excess supply...of labor-power" has any necessary connection to "*Keynesian* unemployment, per se. Marx, for instance, talks about the former in V. I, Ch. 25 without making any evident reference to the latter. And if so, there's nothing essentially "non-neoclassical" about the former condition. One can establish that condition in the context of a suitable intertemporal neoclassical model. >Strictly speaking, that doesn't have to be "Keynesian": it could be due to >the cut-back in accumulation that occurs whenever profits are squeezed by >high wages, in a version of Marx's KI/25 story. I agree, which is why, in my reading, this aspect of Marx's KI/25 chapter is not inconsistent with a neoclassical framework. That is the capitalist >hammerlock -- their class control over the accumulation process and of the >production process -- would _ensure_ that normally the bilateral monopoly >story doesn't apply, so that instead Gil's capitalist monopsony story >applies. I would say further that *as a class* capitalists might enjoy a "hammerlock...over the accumulation process" even in the absence of monopsony, understood as wage-setting power by *individual* capitalists. >> [I could have made an exactly parallel point using markets for credit >extended directly to value producers, per Roemer's isomorphism theorem, but >obviously this introduces an extra complication, so I won't go there.]< > >are you saying that lending money gives the lender monopsony power? No. > doesn't the borrower have the ability to cheat? Maybe, but you don't need to posit the ability to cheat in order to make my point--for example, you can assume perfectly complete contracting conditions. >> Another way of putting this is t
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I agree with your comments. Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > Marx however was concerned with exactly why the value of a commodity > (thing) could only be expressed by way of another thing and > eventually money price. > > > > >I don't see that Marx paid much attention nor was he very concerned > >with the mechanics of the transformation problem. > > Marx's transformation demonstrates the collective nature of > exploitation. This is an important result, and I don't think we > should be intimidated by Bortkiewicz. > > > The so-called transformation problem is a problem only if you > >believe that the precise relationship to prices and values is > >important. > > That the relationship breaks down even in the aggregate-in particular > that prices can and do rise for some time as the value of > commodities are falling--is not a logical contradiction in the labor > theory of value but a real contradiction in the capitalist economy. > > In the course of a boom, there is optimism, even exhiliration, but > even Keynes hints that there are *objective* facts which determine > the changing mood: "The disillusion comes because doubts suddenly > arise concerning the reliability of the prospective yield, perhaps > [!!!] because the current yield shows signs of falling off" (GT, > p.317) > > But this still seems to contradict Marx. For why would profits both > as a mass and possibly even as a rate rise at all in the upward phase > of the cycle since with increasing investments, accumulation of > capital and concentration of production, technical improvements, etc, > the OCC is growing and the tendency for the rate of profit should be > falling? > > I would think that in the course of the boom demand outstrips supply > as a result of the extension of credit and thus allows the price > level to become unhinged from values. Perhaps the general price level > rises faster than money wages in particular? Y/K may rise as well. > > However, as the yield on the marginal investment show signs of > falling off--an objective fact despite Keynes' attempt to > overpsychologize--credit is no longer used primarily to expand > production but to speculate on the stock market and outguess rivals > in futures markets. The Fed may tighten in the face of speculative > excess. The price level cannot be sustained. > > The crisis is on. > > > > >I read Marx as saying that what goes on in the sphere of value is > >far more important than the sphere of prices. The system will > >prices and profits does become important in so far as it shows how > >an economy based on values is dysfunctional and will eventually will > >become a source of great dissatisfaction, so much so that people > >will eventually will reject the market. > > Yes the value dimension becomes visible at some point like one can be > reminded of the law of gravity when one's roof falls on one's head. > > Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: RE: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Jim, thank you for your mostly excellent comments. I agree that the gross deviation of crisis and values is important to Marx. In fact, I have argued that that phenomenon represents an important element of his crisis theory. Also, I should have been more careful in referring to the rejection of capitalism rather than the market. "Devine, James" wrote: > Michael Perelman writes: > > For Marx, value is unobservable. It is a fundamental to > > price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what > > happens in the sphere of value, but Marx paid little > > attention to the manner in which value gives rise to prices. > > > > I don't see that Marx paid much attention nor was he very > > concerned with the mechanics of the transformation problem. > > The so-called transformation problem is a problem only if you > > believe that the precise relationship to prices and values is > > important. > > Right. That's why I think that it should be renamed a "disaggregation > problem": the issue is how Marx's volume I macro-societal story shows up on > (and contrasts with) the microeconomic matters discussed in volume III. The > main story for Marx is that total value = total price and total > surplus-value = total property income, with causation running from the > former categories (the macro-level) to the latter (the micro-level). > > But disaggregation isn't the whole story. Levins & Lewontin summarize the > dialectical method of analysis as whole makes parts, parts make whole, as > part of a dynamic process (to paraphrase). Marx's main concern in CAPITAL > was with how "whole makes parts," how the structure of capitalism-in-general > shapes and determines the nature of microeconomic processes. However, in his > beginning efforts at developing crisis theory, you can see the feed-back > from micro-processes to macro-results. > > > I read Marx as saying that what goes on in the sphere of > > value is far more important than the sphere of prices. The > > system will prices and profits does become important in so > > far as it shows how an economy based on values is > > dysfunctional and will eventually will become a source of > > great dissatisfaction, so much so that people will eventually > > will reject the market. > > Both values and prices are important to Marx. In Engels's phrase, there is a > contradiction between socialized production and individual appropriation. > The former is represented by value and surplus-value, while the latter is > represented by prices and property incomes. > > Marx isn't talking about "reject[ing] the market" as much as rejecting > capitalism, which involves exploitation (in addition to markets). > > Jim Devine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Shane [Mage] writes in response to Justin:>>A monopolist is able to get an above-average rate of return on its capital. Nonmonopolists (except, perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore receive a below-average return on their capital.<< Gil writes:> This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that capitalists enjoy "monopoly" (more accurately, "monopsony") wage-setting power in markets for labor power< Shane Mage can talk for himself, but I think that it's a big mistake -- or even a rhetorical bait and switch -- to suddenly change over to talking about monoposony in labor-power markets. I read Shane as talking about monopoly in product markets, not monopsony. (BTW, Marx wasn't familiar with the concept of monopsony as far as I can tell. But he assumed at one point in volume III that it didn't apply, in that he assumed that Smith's concept of compensating wage differentials did apply and that the rate of surplus-value equalizes between sectors. True monopsony is a microeconomic phenomenon which would cause the monopsonistic industry to enjoy an above-average rate of surplus-value. In theory if the monopsonist is large enough as part of the economy, it might tilt class relations in favor of capital, raising the rate of surplus-value overall.) Gil continues: > ... due to the empirically relevant fact that workers face significant costs of job search (...). Then more monopsony power, and thus more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any other capitalist. Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more surplus labor.< You'd think that in a neoclassical world, the "capitalists" would also face search costs in their efforts to hire employees. This would give the employees who currently have jobs a little bit of monopoly power vis-a-vis their employers. There's no reason in the neoclassical world for the monopsony power of the employers to _a priori_ exceed the monopoly power of the employees, so that we've got a indeterminate bilateral monopoly situation. So there's no reason in the neoclassical world for workers to perform more surplus-labor. But what if it's normal for job vacancies to be less in number than job seekings, i.e., if there's Keynesian cyclical unemployment? In that case -- where there is a non-neoclassical situation of persistent excess supply (a.k.a. "reserve army") of labor-power, the workers would be at the disadvantage that Gil refers to. Strictly speaking, that doesn't have to be "Keynesian": it could be due to the cut-back in accumulation that occurs whenever profits are squeezed by high wages, in a version of Marx's KI/25 story. That is the capitalist hammerlock -- their class control over the accumulation process and of the production process -- would _ensure_ that normally the bilateral monopoly story doesn't apply, so that instead Gil's capitalist monopsony story applies. > [I could have made an exactly parallel point using markets for credit extended directly to value producers, per Roemer's isomorphism theorem, but obviously this introduces an extra complication, so I won't go there.]< are you saying that lending money gives the lender monopsony power? doesn't the borrower have the ability to cheat? > Another way of putting this is that Marx's remark in Chapter 5 to the effect that "The capitalist class of a given country, taken as a whole, cannot defraud itself," (p. 266, top, Penguin ed.) is *doubly* a red herring, first because "fraud" is not at issue in any case, and second because the issue is not whether capitalists exploit *each other*, but rather whether they as a class exploit *workers.*< First, I believe that Marx was using the word "defraud" metaphorically. What he was saying that capital as a whole can't benefit from mere unequal exchange (i.e., when price exceeds value, benefiting one capitalist). That's why, turning to the second point, Marx was very clear that capitalists _must_ get their profit out of production, by workers. Jim Devine
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Shane writes in response to Justin: >A monopolist is able to get an above-average rate of return on its capital. >Nonmonopolists (except, perhaps, in Lake Woebegone..) must therefore >receive a below-average return on their capital. This does not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that capitalists enjoy "monopoly" (more accurately, "monopsony") wage-setting power in markets for labor power due to the empirically relevant fact that workers face significant costs of job search (this is a typical feature of search models; see for example the survey article on monopsony in labor markets by Boal and Ransom in the J. of Econ Lit, 1997). Then more monopsony power, and thus more surplus value, for one capitalist does not imply less for any other capitalist. Rather it implies that workers as a class perform more surplus labor. [I could have made an exactly parallel point using markets for credit extended directly to value producers, per Roemer's isomorphism theorem, but obviously this introduces an extra complication, so I won't go there.] Another way of putting this is that Marx's remark in Chapter 5 to the effect that "The capitalist class of a given country, taken as a whole, cannot defraud itself," (p. 266, top, Penguin ed.) is *doubly* a red herring, first because "fraud" is not at issue in any case, and second because the issue is not whether capitalists exploit *each other*, but rather whether they as a class exploit *workers.* >The economic process >determining these different returns to different capitals is a process of >distributing the value of the total surplus product among the various >claimants to that surplus value. Marx's "Law Of Value" applies to the >aggregate surplus as produced. Because Marx defined "value" as >a determinate quantity of labor time and "capital" as *capitalized* >surplus value he was able to view the capitalist system as a dynamic >entity subject to quantitatively determined "laws of motion" such >as the "Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit" which >has been shown both to be empirically true and to be a strict >consequence of the fundamental social relationships defining a >capitalist economic system. For what it's worth, I'd say the empirical relevance of this "law" remains an open question, as does the sense in which it is a "strict conseqeuence of the fundamental social relationships defining a capitalist system."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
- Original Message - From: Shane Mage To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] But can nature be "described" without mathematics? And are any "natural" entities needed to "describe" arithmoi? If the answer to both questions is negative, which then is "primordial?" Shane = Let me consult the oracle of undecideability and I'll get back to you..;-> Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Title: Re: [PEN-L:23827] Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer > >"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all > >things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even > >downright silly. > > > >When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that > >all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. > >Weiner) Um, the GUI wasn't invented until after Weiner was dead so the above seems of dubious origin. I don't remember the origin of that quote. Ma se non e vero e ben trovato "The space-time continuum? Even continuum existence itself? Except as an idealization neither the one entity nor the other can make any claim to be a primordial category in the description of nature." [John Wheeler] Ian But can nature be "described" without mathematics? And are any "natural" entities needed to "describe" arithmoi? If the answer to both questions is negative, which then is "primordial?" Shane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
- Original Message - From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:29 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23822] Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer > > > >Shane Mage > > > >"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all > >things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even > >downright silly. > > > >When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that > >all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. > >Weiner) Um, the GUI wasn't invented until after Weiner was dead so the above seems of dubious origin. > > Shane, > do you endorse this idealism? Mario Bunge has argued against the myth > that the universe is made of bits rather than matter, a myth > strengthened by the enormous role that information plays in > industrial societies has given rise to the myth An instant's > reflection suffices to puncture this idealist fancy. "In fact, an > information system, such as the Internet, is composed by human beings > (or automata) that operate artifacts such as coders, signals, > transmitters, receivers, and decoders. These are all material things > or processes in them. Not even signals are immaterial: in fact, every > signal rides on some material process, such as a radio wave. > > "In other words, it is not true that the world is immaterial or > in the process of dematerialization - or, as some popular authors put > it, that bits are replacing atoms. We eat atoms, not bits. And when > we get sick we call a physician, not an electronic engineer. What is > true is that E-mail is replacing "snail-mail." But both the > electromagnetic signal that propagates along a net and the letter > carried by a mailman are concrete items. The information revolution > is a huge technological innovation with a strong social impact, but > it does not require any changes in worldview: today's world is just > as material and changeable as yesterday's." > > Bunge, Mario A humanist's doubts about the information > revolution.(The Freedom to Inquire) Free >Inquiry v17, n2 (Spring, 1997):24 (5 pages) > The silent assumption here is that information is immaterialTheories of quantum computation go quite a ways towards undermining the information/matter distinction, a Newtonian legacy.. "The space-time continuum? Even continuum existence itself? Except as an idealization neither the one entity nor the other can make any claim to be a primordial category in the description of nature." [John Wheeler] Ian
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
> >Shane Mage > >"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all >things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even >downright silly. > >When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that >all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. >Weiner) Shane, do you endorse this idealism? Mario Bunge has argued against the myth that the universe is made of bits rather than matter, a myth strengthened by the enormous role that information plays in industrial societies has given rise to the myth An instant's reflection suffices to puncture this idealist fancy. "In fact, an information system, such as the Internet, is composed by human beings (or automata) that operate artifacts such as coders, signals, transmitters, receivers, and decoders. These are all material things or processes in them. Not even signals are immaterial: in fact, every signal rides on some material process, such as a radio wave. "In other words, it is not true that the world is immaterial or in the process of dematerialization - or, as some popular authors put it, that bits are replacing atoms. We eat atoms, not bits. And when we get sick we call a physician, not an electronic engineer. What is true is that E-mail is replacing "snail-mail." But both the electromagnetic signal that propagates along a net and the letter carried by a mailman are concrete items. The information revolution is a huge technological innovation with a strong social impact, but it does not require any changes in worldview: today's world is just as material and changeable as yesterday's." Bunge, Mario A humanist's doubts about the information revolution.(The Freedom to Inquire) Free Inquiry v17, n2 (Spring, 1997):24 (5 pages)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
>The existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was >important >to Marx, but the explanation of profits was not a central concern. You >cannot >prove that agriculture [Physiocrats], ownership of capital [Smith] or >surplus >capital is the source of profits. > > This strikes me as just wierd, Michael: the explanation of profits is the obverse of the explanation of exploitation, they're the same question viewed from different sides. And as to the issue not being important to him from the capitalist side, recall the discussions of frugality and risk easrly on in part I of CI as away of settily up the transition to the focus on production, and the Trinity Formula discussion in CIII, just for starters. I don't know what you mean by yr second sentence, are you restating Marx's results (?) which I largely agree with; I just think that you can explain some profits by normal bourgeois means (buying low and selling high) or monopoly advantages, as in MArx's discussion of differential rent--which leads me to thing that even he doesn't accept thestrict version of the LTV, nut only uses it as an idealization. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
> After all, for value to be surplus, you need a notion of what it is >that is surplus. Justin, the surplus concept has to be thought through. It would be very helpful if we could do this on the list. I think one of the ironies of economic thought here is that while Marx criticized Ricardo for ultimately reducing capital and the surplus to money value terms--Ricardo only cares (Marx noted) about net revenue, whether an employer makes the same 10% of $2000 on an advance of $20,000 whether that advance employs 100 or 1000 workers; Ricardo cares little about gross revenue, the volume of production and consumption in terms of use value and hence according to Marx denies the importance of life itself, Ricardian political economy thereby reaching with such abstraction the peak of its infamy; the neo Ricardians on the other hand treat the surplus only in physical terms--as a collection of the various use values not needed for replacement/reproduction. It seems to me that the neo Ricardian surplus is thus more like the physiocratic one than the Ricardian conception of net revenue which according to Marx ultimately loses all touch--as if it were as abstract as the Hegelian dialectic--with the process of production and the quality of consumption in technical and quantitative use value terms. For Marx, the surplus however has two aspects--a value form and a physical form; the surplus is both a monetary expression of unpaid labor time and a collection of more or less use values. For Marx, the surplus in the latter form has great indirect insignificance for the accumulation process. Unlike the Physiocrats, Ricardo and the neo Ricardians, Marx does not treat the surplus in either value or use value terms; he grasps both aspects of the surplus in his theory of accumulation. His ability to do is based on his key discovery of the dual aspects of labor. 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
The existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was important to Marx, but the explanation of profits was not a central concern. You cannot prove that agriculture [Physiocrats], ownership of capital [Smith] or surplus capital is the source of profits. Justin Schwartz wrote: > > Sure he [Marx] was trying to show where profits come from. are you telling me > that the existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was not > the prime concern of Marx's critique of political economy? I mean really! > > jks > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
> >I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to be an >academic economist trying to work via theorems. Obviously he wasn't an academic. Maybe you are responding with the prickliness of an unorthodox economist to thwe word in ana instititional context where the expexctation is that econokics is supposed to be mathemaetical. I happen to agree with Leontiff that Marx is, whatever else he is, a great mathemaetical economist. But my favorite economists are not mathematical: they are Marx, Keynes, Hayek, Coase--people who had visions, not jsut technical ability. Anyway, Michael, I'm a philosopher, I'm used to dealing with vagueness and fuzziness and arguments taht work at odd angles, so try me out. My institutional context or was different. I am not one who says that all argument has to be deductive and mathemaetical. What I meant by a theorem is that the point you stated about SV is supposed to be something that is shown based on other stuff somehow, by whatever deveious an obscure bits of dialectical reasoning, though of course Hegel fans think that this stuff is all rational and necessary, in fact, are theorems in what they take to be the relevant sense. That is by the way, the point si that I was talking about value at more fundamental level than SV, After all, for value to be surplus, you need a notion of what it is that is surplus. Also, Marx was not really >trying to show where profits come from, but to show the perverse >consequences of the social relations of value. Sure he was trying to show where profits come from. ARe you telling me that the existence and inevitability of exploitation under capitalsim was not the prime concern of Marx's critique of political economy? I mean really! jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
- Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:23729] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer > I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to be an > academic economist trying to work via theorems. Also, Marx was not really > trying to show where profits come from, but to show the perverse > consequences of the social relations of value. > === Ok, so if Marx wasn't using theorems as he understood them, wasn't doing theory, wasn't engaged in creating a representation of capitalism a la Hegel, Ricardo, Locke, Smith, Carey, Leibniz, winding back to Aristotle in order to make normative claims and back them up with hypotheses etc. then what was he doing when claiming social relationships manifest perversity? Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I believe that it is a disservice to Marx to make him out to be an academic economist trying to work via theorems. Also, Marx was not really trying to show where profits come from, but to show the perverse consequences of the social relations of value. On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 04:03:28AM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: > > This is suppose to be a theorem that follows from some of the assumptions I > sketched below, plus a bunch of other stuff. I don't think it is a theorem, > or anyway, that it is an interesting one if it is. The real issue about SV > is where profits come from: do they derive from the exploitation of labor? I > agree that they do, mainly, I also think that Marx shows this. He also > thinks that you need the assumption that they derive only from living labor, > that you need the notion of SV defined in labor theoretic terms to show > this. There I disagree. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
>Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is >than >I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong. > >Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social >relationship >unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor >cannot. This is suppose to be a theorem that follows from some of the assumptions I sketched below, plus a bunch of other stuff. I don't think it is a theorem, or anyway, that it is an interesting one if it is. The real issue about SV is where profits come from: do they derive from the exploitation of labor? I agree that they do, mainly, I also think that Marx shows this. He also thinks that you need the assumption that they derive only from living labor, that you need the notion of SV defined in labor theoretic terms to show this. There I disagree. He does not mean that nature is unimportant or that machines do not >have an important place, but that in capitalism, the key relations for him >is >what sort of social relations exist under capitalism. Agreed. > >You may read him differently; if so, labor may not be the sole source of >value >in your interpretation, but that does not mean that Marx is wrong. > >For that reason, I don't see how this debate can lead anywhere. Maybe not, I have so repeatedly. > jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Justin, I suspect that you merely have a different idea about what value is than I do. It does not mean that either of us would be wrong. Marx, as I read him, is saying that value is a particular social relationship unique to capitalism; only living labor creates surplus value; dead labor cannot. He does not mean that nature is unimportant or that machines do not have an important place, but that in capitalism, the key relations for him is what sort of social relations exist under capitalism. You may read him differently; if so, labor may not be the sole source of value in your interpretation, but that does not mean that Marx is wrong. For that reason, I don't see how this debate can lead anywhere. Justin Schwartz wrote: > > Not at all. I think that Marx's notion of SNALT is a useful one, but it's > not necesasrily a notion of value, or anyway doesn't exhause the notion. Btw > it is important to distinguisg between the theses that SNALT is the measure > of value and that labor is the source of all value. The first is true in a > limited way; as Roemer among other argues, anything can be the numaire, > labor, corn, iron. The question, from thsi point of view, is whether it is > useful or illuminating to use labor as the numaire, and that is where the > redundancy theory kicks in. The other matter, whether labor is the sole > source of value, is a different quesion: labor might be the source and not > the measure (and vice versa). Here I think that labor is _a_ source of > value, anda major one. But not the only one. Ina nay case, Marx simply uses > the first version, and trues tos hwo that using the laboras the measure you > get interesting results. As to thesecond, hewassumes taht it is true as a > matter of definition, with only a passing swipe at subjectivist theories, > which were underdeveloped in those days. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
Please do not let flame wars from other lists spill into this thread. By the way, I suspect that the thread will not prove to be very productive. You cannot "prove" Marx, the Labor Theory of Value, or Neoclassical economics to be wrong. You can show an inconsistency, but mostly the inconsistencies have to do with setting up a straw man. Of course, Marx never finished capital and does have some inconsistencies around the edges, but they are not really central to his theory. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
> No, it;s the obverse of TINA. TINA is ana rgument for > capitalism. To refute > it, you have to show TIAA. Well, I can show you TIAA. In fact, I can show you CREF. (They are parts of my retirement package.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I think the difference between Roemer and Marx concerning the role of (systemic or class) coercion is more apparent than real, more a matter of choice of language and emphasis rather than deep analytical differences. According to Roemer's analysis, capitalist exploitation *requires* differential class ownership of scarce means of production (DOSMP). In a two-factor world, differential ownership means that workers must work for capitalists to secure their subsistence. Scarcity means that labor power is in excess supply relative to means of production, implying a reserve army exists. In this world, coercion exists at the class level: workers may choose *which* capitalist to work for, but will suffer if they don't work for *some* capitalist. Thus I don't see the suggestion that exploitation can exist without at least class-level coercion in Roemer's world. Forgive me if I got it wrong, Justin, but I thought the point of your 1995 article was just that. If so, if Roemer ever said exploitation in his sense didn't involve coercion, he was just applying the wrong notion of the term. On a separate note, in my reading capitalist exploitation in Roemer's sense does not reduce to Elliot and Dymski's notion (taken from a passage in Volume III) of "secondary exploitation"; that is, it does not involve simple redistribution of values that existed prior to the initiation of the relevant circuit of capital. Roemer's isomorphism theorem states that the profits accrued by capitalists in hiring labor power are equivalent to the interest payments capitalists would receive in an otherwise identical economy in which capitalists loan the means of production to workers rather than capitalists hiring labor power. In both cases, the surplus value received by capitalists is produced *subsequent to*, and in fact is financed by, the initial M in the circuit of capital. This argument is based on reading Marx's definition of surplus value as stipulating *two* conditions: 1) the production of new value, financed by the initial M in the circuit of capital, and 2) appropriation of a portion of that newly produced value by someone other than the producer, namely the capitalist(s) who provided the initial M (cf Marx's comments in V.I, chapter 5 about a commodity-owner adding his own labor to his own means of production) I *don't* see Marx anywhere stipulating direct capitalist control of production (i.e., subsumption of labor under capital)as part of his *definition* of surplus value, or thus capitalist exploitation. To the contrary, he repeatedly affirms instances in which capitalist exploitation arises without labor subsumption. Gil > Justin writes:>Roemer's point is logical, that on his notion of > exploitation, you can have > exploitation without corcion. I discuss this at length in my paper on > the > subject; so dooes Jim in his and Dymski's now classic paper.< > > BTW, in terms of purely normative issues, in my 1996 article in Bill > Dugger's book INEQUALITY (Greenwood Press), I follow Arjun Makhijani to > define "exploitation" as "taxation without representation." Capitalists > "tax" (coerce) workers using their class monopoly of the ownership of > the > means of production and subsistence, the reserve army of labor (or > similar > institutions), and thus the supervisor's credible threat of the "sack." > (Strictly speaking, it's not just the macro-level capitalist supremacy > (the > producers' proletrianization) and the micro-level subjection of labor by > capital, but it's also the workers' conscious submission that allows > this > state of affairs. Obviously, the power of the capitalist class is also > crucial.) > > If one accepts this normative definition of exploitation, then the > Roemerian > idea of exploitation without coercion doesn't make sense. If some people > surrendering a piece of the pie to others in a totally and utterly > voluntary > way, it's not taxation (coercion) without representation. (Thus, what > John > Elliott and Gary Dymski call "secondary exploitation" (redistribution of > surplus-value via markets) isn't really exploitation at all in these > terms.) > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > >
Re: RE: Re: Marx vs. Roemer
I developed a similar argument to Jim's, not using the taxation analogy, though, in In defense of exploitation, Econ & Phil 1995. Frank Thompson also hasa piece alomh these lines in Science and Society. jks > >Justin writes:>Roemer's point is logical, that on his notion of >exploitation, you can have >exploitation without corcion. I discuss this at length in my paper on the >subject; so dooes Jim in his and Dymski's now classic paper.< > >BTW, in terms of purely normative issues, in my 1996 article in Bill >Dugger's book INEQUALITY (Greenwood Press), I follow Arjun Makhijani to >define "exploitation" as "taxation without representation." Capitalists >"tax" (coerce) workers using their class monopoly of the ownership of the >means of production and subsistence, the reserve army of labor (or similar >institutions), and thus the supervisor's credible threat of the "sack." >(Strictly speaking, it's not just the macro-level capitalist supremacy (the >producers' proletrianization) and the micro-level subjection of labor by >capital, but it's also the workers' conscious submission that allows this >state of affairs. Obviously, the power of the capitalist class is also >crucial.) > >If one accepts this normative definition of exploitation, then the >Roemerian >idea of exploitation without coercion doesn't make sense. If some people >surrendering a piece of the pie to others in a totally and utterly >voluntary >way, it's not taxation (coercion) without representation. (Thus, what John >Elliott and Gary Dymski call "secondary exploitation" (redistribution of >surplus-value via markets) isn't really exploitation at all in these >terms.) > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
