Re: [OPE] The Labour theory of Value: A Marginal Analysis

From: Ian Wright <>
Date: Sun Sep 07 2008 - 14:16:40 EDT

Hi Gary

I think I almost understand what Hagendorf is saying, although I have
only read not studied his papers. He's saying that marginal analysis is
consistent with a labor theory of value.

For example, he provides a marginal interpretation of "vertically
integrated labor time". Not only do labor-values represent the labor
"embodied" in commodities but they also represent the marginal amount of
extra labor required to produce 1 unit of a commodity.

His work has an important relationship to the difference between
standard and nonstandard labor values, which is why it interests me.

My guess is that, properly conceptualized, there is no difference other
than interpretative semantics between marginal and labor theories of
value in static, equilibrium models. This is a very different conclusion
to the surplus/neo-Ricardian school, which says that both theories of
value are logically untenable.


Gary Mongiovi wrote:
> Hi. The paper has been circulating a long time. I read it about three years ago and couldn't make head nor tail of it. Anyone have a clearer idea what the guy is getting at?
> Gary

ope mailing list
Received on Sun Sep 7 14:19:41 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:31 EST