From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 03:58:56 EDT
> I think your interpretation is correct on all these points, and this passage > would, I think, be hard for those who identify value input in the > transformationprocess with money spent, to reconcile with their view of > Marx. I agree. And more importantly a labour theory of value must explain prices in terms of labour time, not in terms of prices. Here's a relevant quote from Mill (1848): The idea of a Measure of Value must not be confounded with the idea of the regulator, or determining principle, of value. When it is said by Ricardo and others, that the value of a thing is regulated by quantity of labour, they do not mean the quantity of labour for which the thing will exchange, but the quantity required for producing it. This, they mean to affirm, determines its value; causes it to be of the value it is, and of no other. But when Adam Smith and Malthus say that labour is a measure of value, they do not mean the labour by which the thing was or can be made, but the quantity of labour which it will exchange for, or purchase; in other words the value of the thing, estimated in labour. And they do not mean that this regulates the general exchange value of the thing, or has any effect in determining what that value shall be, but only ascertains what it is, and whether and how much it varies from time to time and from place to place. To confound these two ideas, would be much the same thing as to overlook the distinction between the thermometer and the fire.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT