Berkley Rosser wrote:
<<<<
1) The argument that as one traces back "indirect energy"
(or whatever) each successive stage contributes less and therefore
one cannot have a model based on that does not hold. This is
true of labor as well. In a linear I-O model, any Sraffian basic
can in principle serve as "the source of value" in that the
matrix can be appropriately inverted to deduce the value of any
commodity as the sum of the direct and indirect magnitudes of that
basic.>>>>>
I think you misunderstand the argument, it is not that each
successive stage in the sense of previous time periods contributes
less, it is that when you try and solve the value equations
iteratively for the matrix, assuming a random initial assignment
of values, the system converges on a zero solution for all
values. This is true of any Sraffian basic product. Try it
and you will see that this happens.
It is not true of labour, as labour is not a product of the system.
It is an external input to the system.
<<<<
2) Arguing that solar radiation is the ultimate basis of the
biosphere is only partly correct. Solar energy must interact with
necessary biogeochemicals (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) in
fixed ratios in order for life and thus a biosphere to exist, hence
Justus von Liebig's famous dictum that "ohne phosphor keine leben"
(without phosphorus there is no life). A land-based theory of
value would presumably be based on a properly specified biospheric
(and perhaps non-renewable natural resources as well) basis for life.
>>>>
I was merely pointing out that as soon as you allow the possibility
that nature contributes to value no boundaries can be drawn. The
existence of human society depends upon a multitude of natural conditions,
I quoted solar radiation, but one could also take the atmospheric
composition, mean gravitational field, land elevation etc. You end
up potentially considering the totality of existence. But this gets
you no closer to constructing a theory of value. If you think that
a land-based theory of value is possible why not put one forward.
<<<<<
3) Arguments that "land is heterogeneous" and therefore not a good
basis for a theory of value are no weightier than the observation
that a labor theory of value is baseless because of the heterogeneity
of labor.
>>>>>
I agree that lack of homogeneity for land is beside the point.
What is relevant is that value is a social relation and land is
not a social actor.
<<<<<
4) You may be right that if one wishes to have a single-item-based
theory of value, that labor may have an edge over other possible
alternatives because it is "6 out of the 7 bits" available to us
empirically. The more serious question is why have a single-item
theory, especially if it fails to fully deal with problems of time,
scarce natural resources, etc.? The neoclassical GE approach is to
say there is no single source, it is all simultaneous, and the
measure of value is arbitrary (numeraire). An alternative is the
Sraffian "standard commodity" that is not a single item, but also
is not necessarily a Walrasian GE model, although Gil Skillman
would disagree with this final remark.
>>>>>>
The point that I was making is that a value system is a set of
scalar coercion operators that map use values onto a uniform
scalar domain. None of your suggested alternatives differ from this.
The values in the Sraffian system are scalar coefficients by
which the vector representing the standard commodity is multiplied.
One can usefully ask why values take this social form, which
was what I was asking in some of my earlier postings on the
nature of the metric space represented by exchange values.
One can hypothesize economic systems where exchange values
operated in a Euclidean metric space. In such a system the
isovals would be hyperspheres. In actually existing economomies
however the isovals take the degenerate form of linear
budget lines. This is the form characteristic of a physical system
governed by a scalar conservation law, the classic example being
potential and kinetic energies. The form of value is thus very
suggestive of there being a single source, but this formal
similarity is only suggestive not a proof.
If one wishes to propose a non-scalar theory of value, one should
be prepared for the consequence that it will make all conventional
economic calculi meaningless. Arbitrage, cost minimisation, benefit
maximisation etc, become meaningless. One then has to explain
what set of social relations could be represented in such a value
system.
<<<<<
5) The issue of the source of value in a general sense should be
separated from the "returns" received under market capitalism.
After all, asserting a labor theory of value does not lead in
socialism to laborers therefore receiving their surplus value.
The state or the planners or whoever allocates it, quite often to
investment, just as the nasty capitalists sometimes do.
>>>>>
On the contrary it is the function of a theory of value to
explain the returns recieved under market capitalism.
The point about surplus value under socialism is important.
You are correct that under hithertoo existing socialism the
state allocated surplus labour without consulting the masses
in any meaningful way. But I would question whether any socialist
economy has ever seriously used the labour theory of value
in its economic calculation, something that I consider to have
been their most serious economic mistake.
As soon as you start to use the labour theory of value in
practical economic calculation, the state exploitation that
existed in hithertoo existing socialism would have lept to
the fore. Indeed it is only by using the labour theory in
practical calculation that the economy can be de-mystified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cockshott , WPS, PO Box 1125, Glasgow, G44 5UF
Phone: 041 637 2927 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
