[ show plain text ]
At 11:17 12/06/00 +0100, Andrew Brown wrote:
>Regarding the theory of demand:
>is there really much more to say, at the *abstract* level (ie
>generalising over all markets in the manner of microeconomics),
I agree, but that statement is from the standpoint of a classical
marxian view of the theory of value - that it is determined in
production not by market conditions.
I was just supporting Ajits point that if you think marx was saying
demand was important to the determination of value, why did
he not analyse it.
My take on it is that demand is not important to the determination
of value except in the case of marginal land, and that this was
also the position of Marx. Rakesh has been arguing that commodities
only have value once there is sufficient effective demand for them
to sell. If that is the case, then one needs a theory of effective demand
to get a coherent system.
By the way part of this may be terminological, Rakesh sees commodities
prior to sale as having potential value. I would say they have value
which has a big influence on their likely exchange value, so that
if we systematically relabel all uses of the unqualified noun value
in what I write with the phrase 'potential value', what I am saying will
be translateable without loss of meaning into a format acceptable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT