Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 13:44:35 EDT


Quoting Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM>:

> When I get the chance I'll try to respond to your numerical example.
> However, I am still intrigued why there is supposed to be an "adding
> up" problem. I still don't see one. 

Adding up is not the difficulty. There may be several ways to do it. It is what
you add up that matters. The requirement is for a single kind of labour because
there is only one kind of value. There is only one kind of produced commodity,
only one kind of embodied labour. There is only one kind of producer commodity,
only one kind of labour-power.

TV sets and pencils, as artefacts, are of different kinds but, as commodities,
they do not differ in kind.

> Also, are these issues connected
> to your ope-l-0310 on "dynamic value and natural price"? I remain
> interested in hearing and understanding all critcisms of Marx and
> Rubin's theory of value.

OPE-L-0310 was about the deterministic limit of the statistical theory of value
creation I was describing in my last post.

Its characteristics are:

Identity of labour and value.
Money as universal equivalent, hence no price value deviations.
Value created, as measured by money, not equal to the money measured value
creating power of labour-power. This ratio of labour to labour-power is an
ergodic random variable.

Money measured labour can be negative if costs exceed revenue.

Philip Dunn

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 19 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT