I am a retired economics professor (Mount Holyoke College, USA). My main research interests are Marxian Economic Theory, History of Economic Thought, and US Economic History. My most recent book is Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the 'Transformation Problem'. (Brill 2016)
This is the latest installment of an ongoing exchange between Gil Skillman and myself about my ma... more This is the latest installment of an ongoing exchange between Gil Skillman and myself about my macro-monetary interpretation of Marx's theory, which I presented in my 2016 book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the 'Transformation Problem. Skillman wrote a critical review essay of my book (Skillman 2018) to which I responded in Moseley 2018 and to which Skillman responded in turn in Skillman 2020. I appreciate Skillman's continued critical engagement with my interpretation and especially his discussion of the textual evidence that I presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of my book to support my interpretation and also of the algebraic summary of my interpretation in Chapter 2. This response will focus on three main issues: (1) the logical structure of the two levels of abstraction of the production of surplus-value (capital in general, macro) and the distribution of surplus-value (competition, micro), with the determination of the total surplusvalue and the general rate of profit at the macro level of abstraction logically prior to the distribution of the total surplus-value at the micro level of abstraction, including the determination of prices of production; (2) the determination of the MELT and its role in Marx's labor theory of value; and (3) the interpretation of the determination of the transferred value
Appendix 1: No theory of money in Sraffian theory Appendix 2: Sraffian theory cannot realisticall... more Appendix 1: No theory of money in Sraffian theory Appendix 2: Sraffian theory cannot realistically incorporate fixed capital: fixed capital goods as hypothetical joint products 2.1: assumes an equal rate of profit across all ages of a fixed capital good even if its efficiency declines with age 2.2: cannot realistically incorporate more than one type of fixed capital good in each industry 2.3: cannot explain the actual reproduction of fixed capital goods Appendix 3: Sraffian theory cannot realistically incorporate unequal turnover times in different industries: partially completed goods as hypothetical joint products 1 PAGE 19
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
This paper is an introduction to my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretati... more This paper is an introduction to my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem” (Brill 2016). My book emphasizes two main aspects of Marx’s logical method in Capital: (1) Marx’s theory is primarily a macroeconomic theory of the total surplus-value produced in the economy as a whole; and (2) Marx’s theory is a monetary theory from beginning to end and the circuit of money capital – M - C … P … C’ - M’ – is the logical framework of Marx’s theory. It follows from this 'macro-monetary' interpretation that, contrary to the prevailing view, there is no 'transformation problem' in Marx’s theory; Marx’s theory of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume 3 of Capital is logically consistent and complete. The first two sections of this introduction discuss in turn these two key aspects of Marx’s logical method. The third section presents an algebraic summary of this macro-monetary interpretation. And the final two sections discuss the textual evidence for and against the monetary aspect of Marx’s method. It is hoped that reading this introduction will generate interest in reading the book.
The issue in this debate is whether the rate of profit in my " macro-monetary " interpretation of... more The issue in this debate is whether the rate of profit in my " macro-monetary " interpretation of Marx's theory is determined by physical quantities and physical input-output coefficients and is equal to the rate of profit in Sraffian theory, as Kliman argues. As a result of this extensive discussion, I finally realized more clearly and articulated in my comments on Kliman's Parts 9, 10, and 11 that the fundamental error in his arguments and numerical examples is the following: Kliman's so-called " physicalist " input-output coefficients are derived from my monetary prices of production which assume my Marxian monetary rate of profit. These " physicalist " input-output coefficients (along with the assumptions of equal rates of profit across industries and input prices = output prices) are consistent with only one rate of profit and that is my Marxian monetary rate of profit from which these coefficients were derived. Therefore, when Kliman proceeds to derive his " physicalist " rate of profit from these " physicalist " input-output coefficients, the derived " physicalist " rate of profit must be equal to the assumed Marxian monetary rate of profit. This is just circular arithmetic. Kliman's argument does not prove that my monetary rate of profit is determined by physical coefficients and is equal to the Sraffian physical rate of profit, but instead proves that his " physicalist " rate of profit is equal to my monetary rate of profit. And I show in my comments on Parts 9, 10, and 11 that both my Marxian monetary rate of profit and Kliman's " physicalist " rate of profit are different from the Sraffian rate of profit which is derived from actual physical input-output coefficients. This paper will elaborate on these points. I will first review important differences between my monetary interpretation of Marx's theory of the rate of profit and the Sraffian theory of the rate of profit in the following cases: labor-saving technological change, luxury goods industries, and full automation. Then I will discuss in detail the circular reasoning in Kliman's derivation of his " physicalist " input-output coefficients and his " physicalist " rate of profit from my monetary ratios and monetary rate of profit. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7
This paper reviews the textual evidence regarding Marx's concept of prices of production as long-... more This paper reviews the textual evidence regarding Marx's concept of prices of production as long-run center-of-gravity prices in Theories of Surplus-Value and in Volume 3 of Capital, and also compares Marx's concept of prices of production with Smith's and Ricardo's natural prices. It also criticizes the Temporal Single System interpretations of Freeman and Kliman and McGlone.
This is a reply to Andrew Kliman’s two posts on my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Moneta... more This is a reply to Andrew Kliman’s two posts on my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
A given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. Therefore the for... more A given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. Therefore the form of value must not only express value in general, but also quantitatively determined value; i.e. the magnitude of value... The equation 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 years of linen are worth 1 coat, presupposes the presence in 1 coat of exactly as much of the substance of value as there is in 20 yards of linen, implies therefore that the quantities in which the two commodities are present have cost the same amount of labour or the same quantity of labour-time. (C.I. 144)
The contributors to this stimulating collection of thoughtful essays examine the philosophical pr... more The contributors to this stimulating collection of thoughtful essays examine the philosophical principles and logical structure underlying Marx's economic theory in "Capital". The essays deal with many methodological issues including: the meaning of dialectic logic, the relation between Marx and Hegel, the historical specificity of Marx's concepts, the emphasis on social forms, the commodity as the starting point of Capital, the theory of money, the distinction between capital in general and, competition, and Marx's critique of bourgeois economics.
ion in Volume 1 and then a more complete explanation of C and V in the micro level of abstraction... more ion in Volume 1 and then a more complete explanation of C and V in the micro level of abstraction in Volume 3. As I mentioned before, Laibman adopts in this paper the iterative interpretation of the transformation presented by Anwar Shaikh (1977). According to this iterative interpretation, Marx’s presentation of his theory of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume 3 of Capital is not incorrect, but is instead only incomplete. It is only the first step of a multi-step iterative process, which needs to be completed, and the end results of this iterative process are long run prices of production and the associated rate of profit. Laibman agrees with the Bortkiewicz critique that Marx did not transform the inputs of constant capital and variable capital, but he argues that these inputs can be transformed by an extension of what Marx’s first step. However, this iterative interpretation comes to the same quantitative conclusions as the Bortkiewicz-Sweezy simultaneous interpretation, ex...
This is the latest installment of an ongoing exchange between Gil Skillman and myself about my ma... more This is the latest installment of an ongoing exchange between Gil Skillman and myself about my macro-monetary interpretation of Marx's theory, which I presented in my 2016 book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Logic in Capital and the End of the 'Transformation Problem. Skillman wrote a critical review essay of my book (Skillman 2018) to which I responded in Moseley 2018 and to which Skillman responded in turn in Skillman 2020. I appreciate Skillman's continued critical engagement with my interpretation and especially his discussion of the textual evidence that I presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of my book to support my interpretation and also of the algebraic summary of my interpretation in Chapter 2. This response will focus on three main issues: (1) the logical structure of the two levels of abstraction of the production of surplus-value (capital in general, macro) and the distribution of surplus-value (competition, micro), with the determination of the total surplusvalue and the general rate of profit at the macro level of abstraction logically prior to the distribution of the total surplus-value at the micro level of abstraction, including the determination of prices of production; (2) the determination of the MELT and its role in Marx's labor theory of value; and (3) the interpretation of the determination of the transferred value
Appendix 1: No theory of money in Sraffian theory Appendix 2: Sraffian theory cannot realisticall... more Appendix 1: No theory of money in Sraffian theory Appendix 2: Sraffian theory cannot realistically incorporate fixed capital: fixed capital goods as hypothetical joint products 2.1: assumes an equal rate of profit across all ages of a fixed capital good even if its efficiency declines with age 2.2: cannot realistically incorporate more than one type of fixed capital good in each industry 2.3: cannot explain the actual reproduction of fixed capital goods Appendix 3: Sraffian theory cannot realistically incorporate unequal turnover times in different industries: partially completed goods as hypothetical joint products 1 PAGE 19
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
This paper is an introduction to my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretati... more This paper is an introduction to my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the “Transformation Problem” (Brill 2016). My book emphasizes two main aspects of Marx’s logical method in Capital: (1) Marx’s theory is primarily a macroeconomic theory of the total surplus-value produced in the economy as a whole; and (2) Marx’s theory is a monetary theory from beginning to end and the circuit of money capital – M - C … P … C’ - M’ – is the logical framework of Marx’s theory. It follows from this 'macro-monetary' interpretation that, contrary to the prevailing view, there is no 'transformation problem' in Marx’s theory; Marx’s theory of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume 3 of Capital is logically consistent and complete. The first two sections of this introduction discuss in turn these two key aspects of Marx’s logical method. The third section presents an algebraic summary of this macro-monetary interpretation. And the final two sections discuss the textual evidence for and against the monetary aspect of Marx’s method. It is hoped that reading this introduction will generate interest in reading the book.
The issue in this debate is whether the rate of profit in my " macro-monetary " interpretation of... more The issue in this debate is whether the rate of profit in my " macro-monetary " interpretation of Marx's theory is determined by physical quantities and physical input-output coefficients and is equal to the rate of profit in Sraffian theory, as Kliman argues. As a result of this extensive discussion, I finally realized more clearly and articulated in my comments on Kliman's Parts 9, 10, and 11 that the fundamental error in his arguments and numerical examples is the following: Kliman's so-called " physicalist " input-output coefficients are derived from my monetary prices of production which assume my Marxian monetary rate of profit. These " physicalist " input-output coefficients (along with the assumptions of equal rates of profit across industries and input prices = output prices) are consistent with only one rate of profit and that is my Marxian monetary rate of profit from which these coefficients were derived. Therefore, when Kliman proceeds to derive his " physicalist " rate of profit from these " physicalist " input-output coefficients, the derived " physicalist " rate of profit must be equal to the assumed Marxian monetary rate of profit. This is just circular arithmetic. Kliman's argument does not prove that my monetary rate of profit is determined by physical coefficients and is equal to the Sraffian physical rate of profit, but instead proves that his " physicalist " rate of profit is equal to my monetary rate of profit. And I show in my comments on Parts 9, 10, and 11 that both my Marxian monetary rate of profit and Kliman's " physicalist " rate of profit are different from the Sraffian rate of profit which is derived from actual physical input-output coefficients. This paper will elaborate on these points. I will first review important differences between my monetary interpretation of Marx's theory of the rate of profit and the Sraffian theory of the rate of profit in the following cases: labor-saving technological change, luxury goods industries, and full automation. Then I will discuss in detail the circular reasoning in Kliman's derivation of his " physicalist " input-output coefficients and his " physicalist " rate of profit from my monetary ratios and monetary rate of profit. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7
This paper reviews the textual evidence regarding Marx's concept of prices of production as long-... more This paper reviews the textual evidence regarding Marx's concept of prices of production as long-run center-of-gravity prices in Theories of Surplus-Value and in Volume 3 of Capital, and also compares Marx's concept of prices of production with Smith's and Ricardo's natural prices. It also criticizes the Temporal Single System interpretations of Freeman and Kliman and McGlone.
This is a reply to Andrew Kliman’s two posts on my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Moneta... more This is a reply to Andrew Kliman’s two posts on my recent book Money and Totality: A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
A given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. Therefore the for... more A given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. Therefore the form of value must not only express value in general, but also quantitatively determined value; i.e. the magnitude of value... The equation 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 years of linen are worth 1 coat, presupposes the presence in 1 coat of exactly as much of the substance of value as there is in 20 yards of linen, implies therefore that the quantities in which the two commodities are present have cost the same amount of labour or the same quantity of labour-time. (C.I. 144)
The contributors to this stimulating collection of thoughtful essays examine the philosophical pr... more The contributors to this stimulating collection of thoughtful essays examine the philosophical principles and logical structure underlying Marx's economic theory in "Capital". The essays deal with many methodological issues including: the meaning of dialectic logic, the relation between Marx and Hegel, the historical specificity of Marx's concepts, the emphasis on social forms, the commodity as the starting point of Capital, the theory of money, the distinction between capital in general and, competition, and Marx's critique of bourgeois economics.
ion in Volume 1 and then a more complete explanation of C and V in the micro level of abstraction... more ion in Volume 1 and then a more complete explanation of C and V in the micro level of abstraction in Volume 3. As I mentioned before, Laibman adopts in this paper the iterative interpretation of the transformation presented by Anwar Shaikh (1977). According to this iterative interpretation, Marx’s presentation of his theory of prices of production in Part 2 of Volume 3 of Capital is not incorrect, but is instead only incomplete. It is only the first step of a multi-step iterative process, which needs to be completed, and the end results of this iterative process are long run prices of production and the associated rate of profit. Laibman agrees with the Bortkiewicz critique that Marx did not transform the inputs of constant capital and variable capital, but he argues that these inputs can be transformed by an extension of what Marx’s first step. However, this iterative interpretation comes to the same quantitative conclusions as the Bortkiewicz-Sweezy simultaneous interpretation, ex...
A fundamental issue in the current debates over Marx’s value theory (in the IWGVT, on OPEL, in jo... more A fundamental issue in the current debates over Marx’s value theory (in the IWGVT, on OPEL, in journal articles, etc.) is precisely what was Marx’s assumption regarding the determination of constant capital, in the case when the labor-time required to produce the means of production changes. The mostcommonly held interpretation of this issue, and my own interpretation, has been that Marx assumed that constant capital is determined by the "current reproduction costs" of the means of production, in the sense that if the labor-time required to produce the means of production changes anytime between the initial investment of capital and the eventual recovery of this capital through the sale of commodities, then the value of the existing constant capital would also change in order to reflect the current reproduction costs of the means of production.
This paper suggests a way to determine the “monetary expression of labor” (the “MELT”) in today’s... more This paper suggests a way to determine the “monetary expression of labor” (the “MELT”) in today’s regime of inconvertible credit money, a way that is consistent with Marx’s general theory of money and is quantitatively the same as Marx’s determination of the MELT in the case of the inconvertible fiat money of his time. In order to explain this method of determination of the MELT in the case of modern inconvertible credit money, the paper first reviews Marx’s determination of the MELT in the case of commodity money and in the case of the inconvertible fiat money of his time. The final section of the paper discusses the similarities and the differences between my interpretation and Saros’s (2007) interpretation of the MELT in the case of inconvertible fiat money. JEL classification: B51, E11
This paper argues that the future of capitalism depends mainly on the rate of profit. Updates of ... more This paper argues that the future of capitalism depends mainly on the rate of profit. Updates of previous estimates of the rate of profit are presented which show that the rate of profit has recovered only about 40 percent of the prior decline in the rate of profit during the 1960s and 1970s, thus suggesting that the current stagnation in the U.S. economy is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. It is argued that the main reason for the lack of a more significant increase in the rate of profit is a continued increase in the relative proportion of unproductive labor.
This paper responds to Christian Gehrke's comment, and argues that the main conclusion of my... more This paper responds to Christian Gehrke's comment, and argues that the main conclusion of my earlier paper is sustained—that, contrary to Sraffa, Marx did not ‘adopt’ in any sense of the word the joint product method of treating fixed capital. It agrees with Gehrke that Torrens adopted a form of the joint product method, and that Malthus seems to have followed Torrens in this regard. However, it argues that Ricardo did not adopt the joint product method, not even in the one instance cited by Sraffa. Finally, it argues briefly that Marx's ‘transformation of value’ method of treating fixed capital and depreciation is superior to Sraffa's joint product method.
Uploads
Drafts by Fred Moseley
by Fred Moseley
fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu
November 3, 2017
This paper is about Part 13 of the 15-month discussion between Andrew Kliman and myself on the Marxist Humanist Initiative website:
https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/miscellaneous/all-value-form-no-value-substance-comments-on-moseleys-new-book-part-13-2.html/
which started with Kliman’s comments on my recent book Money and Totality A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
(The discussion of Part 13 lasted for 4 months.)
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
by Fred Moseley
fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu
November 3, 2017
This paper is about Part 13 of the 15-month discussion between Andrew Kliman and myself on the Marxist Humanist Initiative website:
https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/miscellaneous/all-value-form-no-value-substance-comments-on-moseleys-new-book-part-13-2.html/
which started with Kliman’s comments on my recent book Money and Totality A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
(The discussion of Part 13 lasted for 4 months.)
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
Papers by Fred Moseley
by Fred Moseley
fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu
November 3, 2017
This paper is about Part 13 of the 15-month discussion between Andrew Kliman and myself on the Marxist Humanist Initiative website:
https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/miscellaneous/all-value-form-no-value-substance-comments-on-moseleys-new-book-part-13-2.html/
which started with Kliman’s comments on my recent book Money and Totality A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
(The discussion of Part 13 lasted for 4 months.)
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.
by Fred Moseley
fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu
November 3, 2017
This paper is about Part 13 of the 15-month discussion between Andrew Kliman and myself on the Marxist Humanist Initiative website:
https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/miscellaneous/all-value-form-no-value-substance-comments-on-moseleys-new-book-part-13-2.html/
which started with Kliman’s comments on my recent book Money and Totality A Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx’s Logic in Capital and the End of the ‘Transformation Problem’.
(The discussion of Part 13 lasted for 4 months.)
In Part 13, Kliman used two different Excel models to try to prove that temporally determined market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production, and thus my equilibrium interpretation of prices of production must not be correct because Marx’s prices of production are center-of-gravity prices around which market prices fluctuate.
This paper reviews my criticisms of Kliman’s two models and concludes that neither model proves that market prices fluctuate around temporally determined prices of production and not around static equilibrium prices of production. Instead, this paper shows that Kliman’s temporally determined prices of production converge to equilibrium prices of production in periods in which the prices of inputs in a given industry remain constant, as a property of the TSSI iterative method.