I profoundly hesitate to get involved in the Cottrell-
Skillman-et-al controversies over Marx and the labor theory of
values. But, one point: From someone who does not "believe"
in the LTV to Gil, the argument that prices are on the surface
and therefore are the supreme driving force does not cut it. I
note that most "standard" economists would argue that what matters
are "real" prices, which depend on other prices and in some cases,
expectations of future price levels (ugh, what a can of worms!).
I am reminded of Geraldine Ferraro and George Bush arguing in
the VP debate in 1984 over interest rates with Geraldine arguing
that real rates were very high and George arguing in effect that
the nominal rates are the "real" rates. You don't want to be George
Bush now do you? Granted, "labor values" may "really" be utterly
metaphysical irrelevant constructs. But simply saying "prices are
on the surface" and labor values are not is not sufficient. It is
nominal prices that are on the surface and few would argue that they
are what supremely drives decisionmaking, class relations, etc.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University
