From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 12:11:37 EST
Hi Rakesh > In other words, value as simple price is a magnitude of no real > importance. Just as for the purposes of the pension system the so > called real age is not important. In fact value as simple price is of > much less importance that total value and total surplus value. OK. How do you determine the value of money? Do you think Marx was right to try and quantitatively match value accounting and price accounting in order to demonstrate that the law of value did not contradict the law of uniform profit? Of the three kinds of reaction to the TP I mentioned -- (i) deny a premiss, (ii) drop a price-value conservation claim, (iii) change Marx's value theory -- where would you situate your: > In bourgeois society, the value of a commodity is its price of production > multiplied by the value of money. As I said, I think this is the right direction to go. But there are obstacles in the way. How are you getting around these obstacles? Best, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 00:00:02 EST