Dear Julio: The line of my argument is very similar to the comment I sent to James Devine.
You wrote: > As Jim Devine wrote, Marx's description of the > process of production in > Capital (vol. I, part III) is akin to this idea. > After all, the material > substratum of the capitalist value equation, w = c + > v + s, is precisely > some relationship between physical outputs and > physical inputs. Without a > physical link between inputs and outputs, how do we > tie the value of outputs > to the value of inputs (rates of exploitation, > profit rates) or the values > of inputs to each other (capital composition)? Following Marx, what determines the magnitude of value of the commodities is the quantity or time of socially necessary labor for its production, and this labor is not concrete but "abstract" labor, and is realized through exchange. When you talk abouth physical inputs you are talking about concrete labor. So the outputs resulting of the process of production (in which Nature is the mother, as William Petty says) are use-values. (In the market they are commodities and, therefore, also values) But which are the physical inputs? I resist to call concrete labor a physical "input", but let's accept this terminology. As Marx says, use values are the result not also of concrete labor but also of nature. So assuming we can deal with the heterogeneity of labour, how can we deal with "nature" (this seem stupid or absurd, but let me continue). Capital is a physical input (as Schumpeter decided it)? Capital belong to the worlds of Nature, concrete labor or both? I think that if we accept the Marxian concept of value, and therefore the reduction of concrete labor to abstract labor and so on, the very concept of production function is at risk. Matías ------------ ¡Ayudá a los chicos navegando! En noviembre, Yahoo! dona un plato de comida por cada usuario que nevegue gratis con Yahoo! Conexión. Conectate ya en http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
