[ show plain text ]
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:51:15 +0100
>From: Paul Cockshott <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L:3300] RE: Re: objectivity of value
>At 12:20 24/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>> 3299] Re: objectivity of value
>> >Paul C writes:
>> > This is a point where we part company, I would go along with Ajit
>> > in saying
>> > that the objective measure of value is labour time. This exists prior to
>> > sale as a
>> > property of the input/output matrix.
>>And Michael W. asks:
>>And what if no input-output matrix has been constructed?
>By input output matrix I was speaking loosely. I should I suppose have
>longhand term - that configuration of the input output relations of the
>that can be encoded as an input output matrix.
>The configuration exists prior to and independently of the data being
>and printed as an input/output table, just as the population exists
>of the printed tables produced by the bureau of census.
>Value is a property of the input/output relations of the economy, and exists
>independently of its encoding either as printed i/o tables or, as printed
>in the books of companies.
>One must distinguish between the practice of gathering statistics and the
>properties of the material system that is being measured when you gather
>To say that value only exists through prices, implies that the recording of
>transactions in the books of companies and banks - a data-structure is being
>confused with the material configuration that caused these records to come
>> > If one takes the opposite position whereby value only exists
>> > after it has been
>> > measured as price, you are philosophically on the ground of neo-classical
>> > subjectivist economics.
>>Can you justify this? Afer all, under competition all agents are assumed to
>Neo classical economics does not have the underlying concept of value.
>It is all about price.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EDT