[OPE-L:4335] Re: Re: Price-Value Equivalence!

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 21:10:36 EDT

Andrew, I'm not clear whether you still feel that there are both a
monetary and the value measure of prices.  If so, then wouldn't you want
to stay with price-value equivalence rather than price=value.?  Paul

******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

"Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/27/00:

>What say you to the "price = value" formulation?

"Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/27/00:

>I'm continuing to use the expression "price = value," because value has a
>twofold measure in Marx's theory (see first page of Ch. 3 of Capital I),
>labor-time and money.  (And he regularly referred to monetary sums as
>values, as well as originating the phrase "price = value.")  I think it
>was only fairly recently that the idea arose that Marx's prices are
>exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively
>labor-time variables.  For instance, Bortkiewicz did not think that, his
>values and prices were both in money.  His "transformatiuon problem"
>concerned the magnitudes of values and prices, not their units of
>measurement.  The first authors I have found who held that Marx's prices
>are exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively
>labor-time variables are Abraham-Frois and Berribi, in a late-1970s book.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST