From: "Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman at msn.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: RE: value theory Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:27:21 -0500
A brief reply to Michael McIntyre, who wrote
"I'll admit that I gave up on value theory a long time ago, but what does equilibrium analysis have to do with it, in any case? The problem is deriving price from value (not value from price as in Vol. III). Until you can do that, you can't derive profit from surplus value, you can't really produce a value-based theory of the firm, arguments about the declining rate of profit go on hiatus or are reduced to vulgar empiricism, and so forth. Where does a theory of partial or general equilibrium enter into this?"
Marx's own "derivation" of price from value, and profit from surplus-value, works perfectly well as long as you don't constrain per-unit input prices (and values) to equal per-unit output prices (and values). That constraint is an *equilibrium* postulate. And the supposed "logical" refutations of Marx's law of the falling profit rate also rely crucially on the same postulate (or an incorrect measure of the profit rate that ignores price [value] changes). Repudiate that postulate and the "logic" of Marx's law is perfectly sound.
I'll be happy to supply the relevant references.
A longer reply would have been more nuanced and better, but I'm rushing to work.
Andrew Kliman