<b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b>
<p class="first" id="d367762e81">This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book <i>Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in</i> Capital <i>and the End of the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pluto Journals
2019-03-01
|
| Series: | World Review of Political Economy |
| Online Access: | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.10.1.0103 |
| _version_ | 1797834123041046528 |
|---|---|
| author | Fred Moseley |
| author_facet | Fred Moseley |
| author_sort | Fred Moseley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p class="first" id="d367762e81">This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book
<i>Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in</i> Capital
<i>and the End of the “Transformation Problem.”</i> This paper responds to the following points: did I misstate Laibman's position in
my previous paper?; the logical priority of the production of surplus-value over the
distribution of surplus-value (i.e., the prior determination of the total surplus-value);
different starting points: quantities of money capital (Marx) vs. quantities of physical
inputs and outputs (Sraffa); is Marx's theory “monetary”?; and (most importantly)
is my interpretation of Marx's theory logically incoherent? I argue that Laibman's
criticism of logical incoherence is based on the usual fundamental misinterpretation
of Marx's transformation of values into prices of production—as a transformation from
one set of micro prices (the values of individual commodities) to another set of micro
prices (the prices of production of individual commodities). To the contrary, I argue
that the logic of Marx's transformation is from
<i>macro</i> total price to
<i>micro</i> individual prices of production and that this macro-to-micro transformation is logically
coherent, so there is
<i>no transformation problem in Marx's theory of prices of production</i>.
</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:33:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-356a9c20a35b4b4baa83a088f8cc0317 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2042-891X 2042-8928 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T14:33:26Z |
| publishDate | 2019-03-01 |
| publisher | Pluto Journals |
| record_format | Article |
| series | World Review of Political Economy |
| spelling | doaj.art-356a9c20a35b4b4baa83a088f8cc03172023-05-03T14:06:46ZengPluto JournalsWorld Review of Political Economy2042-891X2042-89282019-03-0110110311510.13169/worlrevipoliecon.10.1.0103<b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b>Fred Moseley<p class="first" id="d367762e81">This paper is a reply to David Laibman's latest paper critical of my 2016 book <i>Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in</i> Capital <i>and the End of the “Transformation Problem.”</i> This paper responds to the following points: did I misstate Laibman's position in my previous paper?; the logical priority of the production of surplus-value over the distribution of surplus-value (i.e., the prior determination of the total surplus-value); different starting points: quantities of money capital (Marx) vs. quantities of physical inputs and outputs (Sraffa); is Marx's theory “monetary”?; and (most importantly) is my interpretation of Marx's theory logically incoherent? I argue that Laibman's criticism of logical incoherence is based on the usual fundamental misinterpretation of Marx's transformation of values into prices of production—as a transformation from one set of micro prices (the values of individual commodities) to another set of micro prices (the prices of production of individual commodities). To the contrary, I argue that the logic of Marx's transformation is from <i>macro</i> total price to <i>micro</i> individual prices of production and that this macro-to-micro transformation is logically coherent, so there is <i>no transformation problem in Marx's theory of prices of production</i>. </p>https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.10.1.0103 |
| spellingShingle | Fred Moseley <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> World Review of Political Economy |
| title | <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> |
| title_full | <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> |
| title_fullStr | <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> |
| title_full_unstemmed | <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> |
| title_short | <b>A Continuation of the Debate over <i>Money and Totality</i> </b> |
| title_sort | b a continuation of the debate over i money and totality i b |
| url | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.10.1.0103 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fredmoseley bacontinuationofthedebateoverimoneyandtotalityib |