Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Mar 24 2007 - 12:57:47 EDT

> I disagree.  I also assume equilibrium (equal rates of profit), and
> there is no logical problem.  The difference betweeen us is simultaneous
> vs. sequential determination, not equilibrium vs. disequilibrium.  That
> is, if one assumes a different logical method (simultaneous
> determination) from Marx's method (sequential determination), then
> there is a logical problem.
> But it has nothing to do with Marx's theory.

Fred, if your model is sequential then introduce time subscripts. Then
your argument is not circular. But unless you also have dynamic laws
that govern how the system changes over time, and you derive a fixed
point such that the state at t is the same state at t+1, then your
model is not an equilibrium model.

The difference between is is not "simultaneous vs. sequential
determination". I am interested in both, and reject neither.
Simultaneous equations and sequential models are intimately related,
since a system of simultaneous equations can represent a fixed point
of a more general sequential model. I am sure you are well aware of

The point of my recent work is to show that the purported link between
simultaneous determination and the logical impossibility of a labour
theory of value is bunkum.

It is hard not to wonder whether the rejection of simultaneous
determination is simply a convenient immunizing strategy. But we can
do better than that, no?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT