[ show plain text ]
Paul Cockshott wrote:
> At 18:00 11/05/00 +0530, you wrote:
> >What is *value*?
> I think I see why you are asking this.
> For my part I treat it as a word that denotes two related but not identical
> On the one hand I use the word as a shorthand for the phrase labour value,
> the labour time required to produce something.
________________I take it that you mean direct and indirect simple labor time.
This I think is what Marx's concept of value boils down to, and has potential of
going some distance. All other definitions flounder after a step or two.
> On the other hand I use the word as a shorthand for something like generalised
> exchange value. By generalised exchange value I mean what is conserved under
> changes in the numeraire or standard of price used to express exchange value.
I guess you mean something like "natural prices" of classical economists. Of
course, they used value interchangebly for this concept. How to relate the two
concepts (i.e. Marx's and the classicals) is, of course, part of the
transformation problem. You think that impirically the two concepts are close
enough, so why bother--am I right? Cheers, ajit sinha
> For an economy as a whole this is representable a vector conserved subject to
> multiplication by a real valued constant. The elements of the vector are
> represented by real numbers, but may alternatively be treated as random
> with defined means and standard deviations.
> I would justify using the same word as shorthand for both of these
> logically distinct
> concepts because there exists a strong empirical correlation between the two
> quantative measures.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT