[OPE-L:4808] Re: Re: Re: modified significance of the cost price

From: rakeshb (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 15:41:40 EST

Fred, I look forward to your reply, as I have learned much from your 
criticism of what we are calling the standard interpretation. As you 
doubtless know, David Laibman subjects your interpretation to criticism in 
the latest Science and Society; in both content and style his criticism 
reminds me of Ajit's! 

Even though we have our differences about the formula for value determination-
-and the chief advantage of my interpretation at this point is that it makes 
sense of why Marx notes two reasons why the values of commodities diverge 
from their prices of production--I would also like to explore the importance 
we are both giving to price as the necessary form of appearance of value. 
Patrick Murray of course gives a Hegelian interpretation here in terms of the 
essence/appearance logic.  

Just to play around with the analogy to quantum mechanics again (as I read 
through David Z Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience). Monetary 
measurement forces a collapse of commodities into one of two eigenstates: 
value or no value. That is, a commodity undergoes a change from one state to 
another in the process of measurement. We can say that inventories can be 
represented by a superposition of these eigenstates!  

Of course there are at least two places where the analogy breaks down. 

(1) In QM,  measurement supplies a *determinate value* for the observable 
while as Paul Mattick Jr has pointed out privately to me, we are not supplied 
alas with such a determinate value by money measurement. We cannot go from 
the price at which a commodity sells to its value. 

(2) In QM, we have *definite probabilities* for the values measurement will 

All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST