**Next message:**clyder: "[OPE-L:2321] Fw: value form and m-c-m'"**Previous message:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2319] Re: State theory of money"**Next in thread:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2323] Carpe diem!"**Reply:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2323] Carpe diem!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ show plain text ]

This is a reply to Geert's (2296) on 29 January. Geert, thanks

a lot for your post.

1. Geert has agreed that the equation

Y = m L

is to be interpreted that Y IS DETERMINED BY mL

("reading DETERMINATION from right to left";

emphasis added).

In order for Y to be determined by mL in this equation, then

it is a logical necessity that mL must itself be DETERMINED INDEPENDENTLY

of Y (in other words, mL must be determined EXOGENOUSLY of this

equation). Agreed?

2. As I understand it, if Y is to be determined by this equation, then

there are two logical options for the independent determination of mL:

(1) mL is determined as a function of some other variable(s) (which are

independent of Y), as expressed in some other equation(s). mL is then

taken as given in the above equation for the determination of Y.

(2) mL is not explained further and is simply taken as given in the above

equation.

If there are other logical options for the determination of mL

independently of Y, please explain them to me.

3. So I ask: how is mL determined, according to your interpretation of

VF theory? If option (1), then what is your equation (or equations) that

determine mL by other independent variables? Or, is mL in effect just

taken as given (option 2)?

4. You suggest that I would not be happy with option (2). But that is

not true. I would be happy with either answer, at least for now. I would

just like to know which one it is. If it is option (2), then your theory

of the magnitude of value added would be incomplete, in ways similar to

Marx's theory. But at least there would be a beginning of a theory of the

magnitude of value added.

My main point here is that there are these two logical options available

and there are no other options.

5. You say: "effectively mLi can be MEASURED only in the

market" (emphasis added)?

What precisely do you mean by "MEASURED only in the market?"

That mLi can be OBSERVED only through market prices (i.e. as value

added)? But I am not talking about the OBSERVABLE MEASURE of mL. I am

talking about the THEORETICAL DETERMINATION of mL. mL cannot be

DETERMINED BY value added on the market, because ml is supposed to

DETERMINE value added.

6. You also say: "I have indicated how one GETS TO mL."

Again, what precisely do you mean by "GETS TO mL"?

MEASURE (or OBSERVE) mL? Or DETERMINE mL?

7. You also say: "As I explained in my 1993 paper, in order to GET TO

your's and Marx's reduction coefficients, you need the market."

I have the same questions as above: What precisely do you mean by "GET

TO"? MEASURE (or OBSERVE) or DETERMINE?

As I have said, I am concerned with the latter question of determination,

not the former question of observable measure. The reduction coefficients

may indeed be observable only in terms of value added, but these reduction

coefficients cannot be determined by value added, because these reduction

coefficients are supposed to partly determine value added and hence must

be determined independently of value added.

In your (1993) paper that you cite, it sounds to me like you are talking

about an EMPRICAL MEASURE of abstract labor. You say:

"I think [Marx's] simplifying abstraction (assumption) [that all labor is

simple labor] makes a quantitative procedure at the empirical level of

adding up concrete pre-market hours very dubious.

...

[This simplifying assumption] does not get us to the empirical level.

For that we need a procedure to quantify the discounting coefficients.

It is hard to see how this can be done prior to the market." (pp. 97-98)

This seems to be saying that, in order to have an empirical measure of

abstract labor, one needs market prices. But again, I am not talking

about the observable form of appearance of abstract labor. I am talking

about the determination of abstract labor independently of this form of

appearance.

8. I will discuss further my interpretation of Marx's determination of L

and m, as you (and Mike and Riccardo) have requested, as soon as time

permits, but first I would like to clarify further these points about

value-form theory, which has been the main focus of this discussion.

Geert, thanks again for the stimulating discussion (continuing a long

discussion and making some progress, I think). I look forward very much

to its continuation.

Comradely,

Fred

**Next message:**clyder: "[OPE-L:2321] Fw: value form and m-c-m'"**Previous message:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2319] Re: State theory of money"**Next in thread:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2323] Carpe diem!"**Reply:**Gerald Levy: "[OPE-L:2323] Carpe diem!"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:45 EDT
*