Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 16:42:50 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul C
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: measurement of abstract labor
> Ian Wright wrote:
> >
> >
> >The low price does mean that some of your labour-time is 
> >retrospectively counted as less than socially necessary. You wasted 
> >some time. But the value of the commodity does not change.
> >
> >I can take the socially necessary amount of time to produce a 
> >particular commodity but if no-one wants to buy it then my 
> labour was 
> >socially unnecessary. Is there something wrong with this?
> >
> >
> Just that the language involves a loss of information. To 
> distinct causes are categorised the same way. Since it is 
> possible in principle to distinguish them perhaps we should 
> have different terms for the two situations.
> As an information processing system, the price mechanism can 
> not distinguish these causes,  it is too low a bandwidth 
> channel. But theoretically we should have some terminology to 
> distinguish them.

Is not this issue very close to the neo-classical econometric identification
problem as between supply and demand curves, with the former as derived from
efficient cost curves?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 20 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT