Barkley Rosser (hi, Barkley) takes exception with the way I pose the point that labor values are at best superfluous: > 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!). Oh, I agree, I agree, I agree. But whatever "surface reality" one posits that people *do* respond to, in light of Barkley's comments, I'll bet it is at least as far removed from labor values as it is from prices of production, for reasons given in my earlier post. Thus I reiterate the original sense of my remarks, with Barkley's amendment. gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
