**Next message:**Duncan K. Foley: "[OPE-L:2295] Announcing Growth and Distribution"**Previous message:**C. J. Arthur: "[OPE-L:2293] Re: value-form theories"**In reply to:**Michael J Williams: "[OPE-L:2280] Re: : value-form theories"**Next in thread:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:2163] Re: Re: value-form theories"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ show plain text ]

Hi Michael,

Thank you very much for your response in (2280), which I found helpful and

clarifying. I am very glad to learn that VF theory does not in fact

object to unobservable entities in economic theory. I only persisted in

asking the question because I didn't receive an answer before. I am very

glad that we agree on this general point.

My "core" objection to VF theory remains, as I have expressed in previous

posts, that it does not provide a quantitative theory of prices (or value

added) and profit. In a recent post, Geert argued that value-form theory

does indeed present a quantitative theory of value added, which is

represented by the same kind of equation as in my interpretation of Marx's

theory:

(1) Y = m L

As I have argued, this one equation has three variables. Therefore, if

this equation is to express a meaningful theory of value added, then the

other two variables, L and m, must somehow be determined outside this

equation, and taken as given in this equation. Otherwise, the equation

would be a tautology (true by definition) or indeterminant (too many

unknowns with one equation) or (as Riccardo put it) an "accounting

identity."

Michael has replied briefly in (2280) that the causal relation between

labor and value added is not one-way, but rather "TWO-WAY".

L depends on Y, as well as Y on L.

But, Michael, this is not possible with only one equation. If this

equation is to determine the magnitude of Y, then L must be determined

outside this equation, and taken as given in this equation. If the causal

relation were indeed "two way", then one would need a second equation to

express the dependence of L on Y. And this second equation cannot be

equation (1), turned around, i.e.:

(2) L = Y / m

This is a tautology or an accounting identity. In order to determine both

Y and L, the second equation must be linearly independent of equation (1).

I don't think this fundamental law of mathematical logic is somehow

overruled by systematic dialectics. Am I wrong?

I look forward very much to further discussion.

Comradely,

Fred

**Next message:**Duncan K. Foley: "[OPE-L:2295] Announcing Growth and Distribution"**Previous message:**C. J. Arthur: "[OPE-L:2293] Re: value-form theories"**In reply to:**Michael J Williams: "[OPE-L:2280] Re: : value-form theories"**Next in thread:**Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:2163] Re: Re: value-form theories"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST
*