Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 10:59:42 EDT

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:

> [Paul C wrote:]
> > What you have then is a famine, and the reproduction of the
> > population is seriously in question. A large part will die off
> > in the absence of relief supplies comming in. Prices are
> > then driven by speculation rather than costs of production and
> > the theory of value ceases to to have any relevance to describing
> > what happens.
> [Phil wrote:]
> Ex-post value accounting can still be done in these circumstances, whatever
> happens to prices. Simultaneous valuation theories, of course, breakdown.
> Phil:
> All theories which, through the assumption of the conservation of value,
> allow no role for the destruction of value, breakdown.
> In solidariuty, Jerry


In the example I gave no value was destroyed -- aggregate value added was
positive. Temporality is the crucial factor.

At the disaggregated level value can be destroyed. If the value of a firm's
revenue falls short of its non-wage costs then the embodied labour value added
in the firm is negative and labour, as measured by money, is also negative. 
Labour can create value but also sometimes destroy it.  Thoughout all this
value  is conserved in exchange.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT