[OPE-L:7841] Re: SNLT

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 10:28:57 EDT

Chris wrote in [7840]:

"In my opinion now snlt should be understood to reflect modal lt. The
difference may not be great empirically but is huge conceptually.
The average notion fits embodied LT theory like a glove. Every commodity
sold has an individual value for which all LT counts and then social snlt
is the average, and there is a transfer of value from the less efficient to
the more efficient (see Carchedi for a typical reading). This means that
the idea of unnecessary time really becomes trivial since the only case is
unsold commodities. The time in all the sold ones counts for value en bloc.
I am sure Marx originally thought of something stronger.
If snlt is determined by modal lt, there are two cases. In old-established
industries with a big tail of inefficient firms modal lt will be lower than
average. This means that those less efficient firms that have sold
commodities have unnecessary labour in them, so this is much stronger then
the trivial case of unsold commodities.  <snip, JL> ".

You refer twice in the paragraph above to the "trivial" case of unsold
commodities.   Yet, you offered no reasons for why you believe this "case"
(which in any dynamic theory typically and necessarily occurs for
extended periods, indeed it is a manifestation  -- a necessary form
of appearance -- of the contractionary  phase of the cycle) is "trivial".
Why trivial, Chris?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 26 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT