¡¡ Declaración política de lukymá.-Lmm., mandada, como comentario en >> https://theplanningmotive.com/2022/02/21/emperical-support-for-the-double-solution-to-the-transformation-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-2525,...¡¡.
[Nueva entrada] EMPERICAL SUPPORT FOR THE “DOUBLE-SOLUTION” TO THE TRANSFORMATION PROBLEM. (APOYO EMPÉRICO A LA “DOBLE SOLUCIÓN” AL PROBLEMA DE LA TRANSFORMACIÓN.)
EMPERICAL SUPPORT FOR THE “DOUBLE-SOLUTION” TO THE TRANSFORMATION PROBLEM. | THEPLANNINGMOTIVE.COM
EMPERICAL SUPPORT FOR THE “DOUBLE-SOLUTION” TO THE TRANSFORMATION PROBLEM. When I began investigating the Transformation Problem, I soon realised that Marx’s definition of prices of production was incomplete. I provided a fuller definition: “The ‘price of production’ is not the price which yields an average rate of profit on the old capital, but the average rate of profit on the newly appreciated or depreciated capital.” This broader definition thus requires not one but two transfers of surplus value, the first, as in Chapter 9 was needed to average out profit rates and arrive at “prices of commodities”, and the second to move from prices of commodities to prices of production by pricing capital and adjusting profits to compensate. Thus we may call my solution to the transformation problem, the double-solution. The need for this double transfer has not been previously recognised. And in not being recognised it opened the door to all the criticisms levelled at Marx where it was said his examples (Tables) were incongruous because inputs were cast in their value form while outputs were cast in their price form. And as prices deviated from values, the inputs and outputs were incongruous. The result of all of this criticism was to turn the defenders of Marx into intellectual acrobats as they tried to defend Marx and to rescue him from this predicament. Most just ducked the issue at hand, that is the movement from value to price. For my part there was nothing wrong with Marx’s arithmetical example. All he was trying to do in Chapter 9 was to show in which direction and by how much surplus value needed to be distributed to achieve an average rate of profit in an economy were capitals differed in their composition. All that was required was to use Chapter 9 as the foundation and take the additional step to ensure equality between inputs and outputs without deviating from the methodology lodged in that Chapter. In order not to repeat myself the reader needs to read two articles in the order, http://theplanningmotive.com/harmonising-transformation-with-reproduction-completing-the-defenseof-the-law-of-value/ and then the earlier article http://theplanningmotive.com/a-comprehensiveupdate-of-the-transformation-problem/ The first article is called: “HARMONISING THE TRANSFORMATION OF PRICES WITH REPRODUCTION, or making Marx’s Labour Theory of Value bulletproof”, and the second: “A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE TRANSFORMATION PROBLEM”. There I explain why there needs to be two distributions of surplus value, one to adjust the mass of profits and the second to price capital, and which once done, it yields the actual prices of production. What I did not do in either of these articles was provide any empirical proof based on real life economic data to support this solution. This article seeks to remedy this. In the article on “Harmonising”, I make the bald claim that “The rising composition of capital necessarily leads to an appreciation of constant capital and a depreciation of labour power in terms of money”, to which may be added, because of the second transfer of value. There was no support for this assertion. This article will provide the proof. In investigating the various price indexes at this unique time of high inflation, I realised it was possible to compare the prices of constant capital, with the prices of consumer goods, many of which go into making up the basket that prices labour power. If I was right then the respective price indexes would show a rise in the price of constant capital relative to the price of labour power,...//,... ¡¡¡.
Esta es una pieza teórica que concluye los años de trabajo que he dedicado a refinar y corregir la 'doble solución' al problema de la transformación. La solución permanece fiel a la metodología de Marx que se encuentra en el Capítulo 9 del Volumen 3 y se emplea para completar la solución al problema de la transformación. Lo diré de nuevo, la ley del valor se mantiene o cae en nuestra capacidad para explicar el problema de la transformación y, por lo tanto, la relación entre los valores subyacentes y los precios circulantes. Los videos no se muestran en este correo electrónico y deben verse en el sitio web . |
Luciano Medianero Morales/fb.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario