Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption

From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2006 - 02:05:34 EDT


On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:37 -0700, Ian Wright wrote:

> In simple commodity production prices are proportional to
> labour-values and labour-embodied equals labour-commanded. A dynamic
> analysis of simple commodity production reveals that it is the
> out-of-equilibrium mismatches between labour-embodied and
> labour-commanded that are an essential causal link in the operation of
> the law of value. That these two measures are identical in equilibrium
> does not imply a rejection of a labour theory of value. Similarly for
> the equilibrium of simple reproduction. Although I am no expert on
> this, I believe Ricardo criticised Smith for not adhering to a labour
> theory of value.

Hi Ian

Adam Smith's measure, the real price, could be called labour-power
commanded. Another measure to be considered is what could be called
labour-content commanded or embodied labour commanded but is better
formulated as labour activity commanded. The first asks how many clock
hours of labour-power can be hired by a given sum of money.  The second
asks how many clock hours of labour activity are commanded by the sum of
money corresponding to the value added in a purchased product.

The aggregate wage bill commands all the hours of labour-power hired.
Aggregate money value added commands all the hours of labour activity
worked.

Borrowing Adam Smith's term, the real value of the aggregate money wage
bill is expressed by aggregate labour time. Borrowing from Ricardo, the
absolute value of money value added is expressed by aggregate labour
time also.





___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail  Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT