Re: [OPE] devaluation and revaluation of variable capital

From: Alejandro Agafonow (alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2008 - 04:27:28 EST

```Yes Paul, I agree with you.

When Austrians refers to “value”, they mean subjective value, that is: utility, ophelimite. But you know that Mises recognized that labour time could serve as counting unit, even though he had further objections to its use.

Concerning energy I’m not so sure. That’s because you need a further devise to link counting unit and subjective preferences. In your model this is made by a sort of prices expressed in labour tokens.

But, what kind of equivalent devise you can think for energy?

Alejandro Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: lunes, 25 de febrero, 2008 0:55:28
Asunto: RE: [OPE] devaluation and revaluation of variable capital

«The kernel of Mises’s theory of calculation is this: while calculation in terms of money prices is the essential intellectual tool of entrepreneurs acting in a market economy, calculation in terms of “value” is impossible. A calculus can only be performed with multiples of an extended unit; for example, one can add one apple to another apple or one grain of silver to another grain of silver. In contrast, one cannot add a telephone to a piano concerto and still less can one add wittiness to silence. These things are incommensurable and therefore cannot be linked through mathematical operations. So it is with value. One cannot quantify the value of a thing because value is not extensive and therefore not measurable. […] However, value can be qualitatively “imputed” from consumer goods to factors of production, in the sense of a value dependency: those factors of production are valuable only because they serve to produce valuable consumer
goods. But there is no such thing as quantitative value and thus no value calculation; there is only price calculation.» (Jörg Guido Hülsmann. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, www.mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf pp. 399-400)

Kind Regards,
Alejandro Aagafonow
That objection hardly applies to any embodied theory of value, whether the embodied unit be labour or energy. The embodied quantity is expressed as a scalar projection along a single dimension and can thus be used in economic calculation.
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@tiscali.nl>
Para : Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: lunes, 11 de febrero, 2008 21:31:05
Asunto: [OPE] devaluation and revaluation of variable capital
Alejandro,

Your reply does not seem very intelligent to me, though you are obviously intelligent. I am not a Marxist at all, and I do not think that Marx exhaustively describes or explains all the phenomena of economic value. I have never argued that either, as far as I am aware. Nor do I think that Marx claimed anything like that.

Although I don't prefer Ernest Mandel's style (though he writes clearly, at least), he makes a perfectly valid point:

"[Marx's Capital] was never intended as a handbook to help governments to solve such problems as balance-of-payments deficits, nor yet as a learned, if somewhat trite, explanation of all the exciting happenings in the marketplace when Mr Smith finds no buyer for the last of his 1,000 tons of iron. It was intended as an explanation of what would happen to labour, machinery, technology, the size of enterprises, the social structure of the population, the discontinuity of economic growth, and the relations between workers and work, as the capitalist mode of production unfolded all its terrifying potential. >From that point of view, the achievement is truly impressive." (Cap. Vol. 1, Penguin intro, p. 22-23).

I could quibble with phrases such as "terrifying potential", but the main point is fair enough I think.

I do not understand how marginal utilities provide any useful precision, because "utility" is something which is barely quantifiable as such, if at all. I can quantify "utility" only by finding proxies which, according to some argument, provide an indicator of utility, but the whole thing quickly becomes tautological. Of interest to me is not an ideological justification of the rationality or usefulness of markets, I'm convinced they have their place, but an explanation of how they really function, never mind the bullshit, and that's much harder.

If you know anything about the world economy, you know that "scarcity" does not ultimately explain very much about the allocation of global resources, and anyway the very concept of scarcity is as problematic as the concept of value, insofar as it has both subjective and objective aspects. I would not deny that scarcity is an important allocative principle or that scarcity can influence prices, but insisting on that doesn't solve any problem, since there are many different kinds of scarcity. If scarcity is to have any explanatory power, I would need to get highly specific about what sort of scarcity we are talking about.

The concept of "average socially necessary labourtime" refers to a relationship between supply of products and the need for those products, recognized via effective demand. That concept may not be adequate for an economist interested in the optimal allocation of (scarce) resources, but it was adequate for the purpose of Marx's critique of political economy. Marx was hardly an expert in the optimal allocation of resources, I mean, he couldn't even make an independent living on his own strength. He had great strengths, but that wasn't one of them.

I'll try one of these days, if I see an opportunity, to visit Austria , and I will see if I come to different or better conclusions. For the rest, I do think a number of points you make are quite valid and I can learn from them - in that sense you are fighting the wrong guy. That aside, these topics are very complex, and I regret to say I have not yet found an adequate way to express my ideas about them effectively, in a very concise way. I do not have the leisure to think through the problems thoroughly as I would like, to get to a good crisp formulation of their essence. That is why I am rather reluctant to say a lot about it at this stage. Other OPE-Lers can do so better than I can, and it's better if I mainly follow the discussion.

My reference to gross output is not trivial, since the total number of actual and ideal prices extant in the world is a multiple of the prices implied in gross output. Marx was primarily concerned with the valuation of the new output of capitalist production, not all prices, or all assets, for which labour-value may be largely irrelevant.

Jurriaan

-----Sigue archivo adjunto en el mensaje-----

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

¿Con Mascota por primera vez? - Sé un mejor Amigo
Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas.

-----Sigue archivo adjunto en el mensaje-----

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

______________________________________________
¿Con Mascota por primera vez? Sé un mejor Amigo. Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas http://es.answers.yahoo.com/info/welcome

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST