[ show plain text ]
Duncan K. Foley wrote:
> Wicksell bases his critique of Marx's theory of money on the dependency of
> "socially necessary labor time" on demand. He argues that it is not true
> that "money comes to the market with a value and commodities with a price"
> determined in production because of this point.
That's why i think the Hegelian interpretation of "socially
necessary labor" is
a dead end for Marxian economics. And, of course, beginning of the
of Marxian economics into neoclassical economics. Cheers, ajit
> >At 17:18 18/05/00 +0530, you wrote:
> >>Marx's price theory is nothing but Sraffa's.
> >I would agree, but perhaps the other way round, Sraffa was just formalising
> >Marx's theory.
> >I accept Ajits point about the ambiguity of Marx's definition of socially
> >necessary labour time. There is a conceptual slide between a technical
> >definition and a definiton based upon effective demand.
> >For consistency the references to effective demand determining value
> >should be dropped. One should stick to a technical definition defined in
> >terms of the mean labour required to produce commodity X averaged over
> >the firms currently producing it. One would calculate this by adding up
> >the total number of X.s produced per week let this =n,
> >let the number of workers employed
> >directly and indirectly to produce these X.s be y, let the working week
> >be w hours.
> >then the value of an X is yw/n hours.
> >No need to refer to demand conditions at all.
> Duncan K. Foley
> Leo Model Professor
> Department of Economics
> Graduate Faculty
> New School University
> 65 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
> messages: (212)-229-5717
> fax: (212)-229-5724
> e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> alternate: email@example.com
> webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EDT