Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 09:18:16 EST

Hi Ajit,
Am afraid am not clear on what you are insisting - would be clearer if you explained your own view of the quantitative relation between price and labour time -- you never know we may even agree about this!
Many thanks,

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha 
	Sent: Fri 25/03/2005 10:23 
	Subject: Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

	--- Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote:
	> Hi,
	> Likewise quickly,
	> There would be no use, nor truth, in the LTV if
	> there were no quantitative relation between price
	> and labour time. My point is simply that it doesn't
	> need to be an exact proportional relation. Your
	> theoretical point boils down to making the far too
	> bold claim that absent exact proportionality there
	> can be no theory.
	I guess now you have a private meaning of
	"proportionality" too. Because I have never insisted
	on any kind of proportionality. As a matter of fact in
	your proposition, which I'm criticising,
	proportionality has no meaning. Your proposition is
	that a change in prices is related to a change in
	labor-time in the same direction. I'm simply
	questioning this proposition and the basis of this
	proposition. Where is the question of proportionality
	 You keep asking about how labour
	> time and price are related. But we know the answer:
	> it is through the processes of competition, i.e.
	> through the mechanism of the 'invisible hand'.
	This again makes no sense. You need to show how the
	"invisible hand" relates labor-time to price
	magnitutes, if it does any such thing. Failing which
	your theory becomes invisible and the poor invisible
	hand cannot lend you any helping hand.
	> Yes, there are qualitaive as well as quantitative
	> reasons for the LTV (basically any society has to
	> determine labour allocation, in our society this is
	> thorugh price).
	But basically every society has to determine land
	allocation too. Why shouldn't we have a Land Theory of
	In my earlier posts I had forgotten to mention one
	point about your example of incommensurability of the
	two vectors. As a matter of fact your two vectors
	would be "incommensurable" as long as the quantity of
	some goods (or one good) are higher or some (or one)
	are lower in the two vectors. You don't need any "new
	good" for incommensurability in your own case. Thus
	for your own argument, "new good" is simply
	extraneuous and irrelevant. Cheers, ajit sinha
	Do you Yahoo!?
	Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 30 2005 - 00:00:02 EST