"Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, that's a statement of belief. You don't like the LOV, so it's "bad." And you like to insult people, labelling them "true believers." That's a good way to insulate your hard core of belief from any alternative points of view, shutting off discussion. Is that your goal, JKS?
It's clear that something is wrong with the traditional presentation of Marx's "labor theory of value" (even though, if specified correctly, it does a pretty good job at predicting long-term equilibrium prices in competitive markets in statistical tests). For example, the usual presentation totally ignores the question of the _reasons_ why Marx assumed that values = prices in volume I of CAPITAL, used value abstractions so much throughout the entire book, and (unlike most economists) did not see price determination as a big issue that should be addressed up front. (Further, why didn't he ever use the phrase "labor theory of value" except in reference to Ricardo's very-different price theory?) (Snip)
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
