There are a number of variations, as Marx describes. Comparing any commodity, A, with the money commodity, B, then the value of A may rise while B remains constant, so the price of A rises. The value of A may remain constant, but value of B falls, so that, again, the price of A rises. The value of A rises, and of B falls, so the price of A rises. The value of A and B rises, but A rises more than B, so its price rises, or by less than B so its price falls. Similarly, the value of A may fall, whilst B remains constant, so its price falls. A might remain constant but the value of B rises, so the price of A falls. All variations are a combination of these different movements.
But, again its obvious from this that inflation cannot be the result of falling productivity/rising values/costs. That is, it cannot be a consequence of cost-push. If productivity, in general, falls proportionately, then the values of A and B rise by the same proportion, so that the exchange-value/price of A, measured by B, remains constant. If A is a metre of linen, with a value of 10 hours labour, and B is a gram of gold (£1), also with a value of 10 hours of labour, then a fall in productivity of 20% causes the linen and gold to rise in value to 12 hours. The exchange value of linen remains 1 gram of gold (£1). Prices can only change, in total, as a result of a disproportionate change in the value of the money commodity, relative to the value of other commodities. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
“If some factor were to cause the productivity of all types of labour to fall in equal degree, thus requiring the same proportion of additional labour for the production of all commodities, then the value of all commodities would rise, the actual expression of their exchange-value remaining unchanged, and the real wealth of society would decrease, since the production of the same quantity of use-values would require a larger amount of labour-time.” (p 41)
Two aspects of the commodity have been examined separately; its use value and its exchange-value. In the product, use-value and value are inextricably linked. That is not the case with the commodity, even though the commodity entails both use-value and exchange-value. Mill, Ricardo and Say analysed the commodity as it were a product, and examined trade in money economies as though it were still barter, with money simply being a convenient invention to facilitate exchange. Its on this basis that Say's Law rests, and from which its errors derive.
Use value and value are inextricably tied in the product, because the producer expends labour/creates value only in order to obtain the use value, which they consume. The value is consumed along with the use value. Say's Law assumes this continues with commodity production, and it also derives from Adam Smith's absurd dogma that the value of commodities resolves entirely into revenues. Marx notes,
““M. Say,” writes Ricardo in Chapter XXI (“Effects of Accumulation on Profits and Interest”), “has…most satisfactorily shewn, that there is no amount of capital which may not be employed in a country, because demand is only limited by production. No man produces, but with a view to consume or sell, and he never sells, but with an intention to purchase some other commodity, which may be immediately useful to him, or which may contribute to future production. By producing, then, he necessarily becomes either the consumer of his own goods, or the purchaser and consumer of the goods of some other person. It is not to he supposed that he should, for any length of time, be ill-informed of the commodities which he can most advantageously produce, to attain the object which he has in view, namely, the possession of other goods; and, therefore, it is not probable that he will continually” (the point in question here is not eternal life) “produce a commodity for which there is no demand.” ([David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, London, 1821,] pp. 339-40.)”
(Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17, Section 6)
No comments:
Post a Comment