on 2/6/02 03:55 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Sir Charles Brown
>
> You determine value as depending upon future condition. but it may be
> wrong, because value which depends upon future belongs to sphere of
> fictitious capital flow, such as various derivertives -futures, fo
In a message dated 2/5/2002 11:57:50 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Suppose that you are looking at the value circulating in the economy today.
How would you value the constant capital values found in the commodities
produced? That will depend on whether the constant capi
>Sir Charles Brown
You determine value as depending upon future condition. but it may be
wrong, because value which depends upon future belongs to sphere of
fictitious capital flow, such as various derivertives -futures, forword
option, swap etc- not belong to real capital market. In reality,
value and price: a dissenting note
by Michael Perelman
05 February 2002 01:20 UTC
Suppose that you are looking at the value circulating in the economy today.
How would you value the constant capital values found in the commodities
produced? That will depend on whether the constant capital
on 2/5/02 05:22 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : value and price: a dissenting note
> by Michael Perelman
> 03 February 2002 05:46 UTC < < <
>
>
> Michael P:I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante --
> values
> today
I would accept your modification of my words without reservation.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 06:04:18PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Suppose that you are looking at the value
> > circulating in the economy today.
> > How would you value the constant capital
> > values found in th
Michael wrote:
> Suppose that you are looking at the value
> circulating in the economy today.
> How would you value the constant capital
> values found in the commodities produced?
> That will depend on whether the constant
> capital will turnover in 1 year or 10 years.
Michael,
I don't think
Suppose that you are looking at the value circulating in the economy today. How would
you value the constant capital values found in the commodities produced? That will
depend on whether the constant capital will turnover in 1 year or 10 years.
Charles Brown wrote:
> CB: I did read Michael P
: value and price: a dissenting note
by Michael Perelman
03 February 2002 05:46 UTC < < <
Michael P:I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values
today that depend on conditions in the future.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
In a message dated 2/2/2002 11:19:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 2/3/02 10:39 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of
> the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no i
>
>I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values
>today that depend on conditions in the future.
>
>On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
> >
> > I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL
> > ECONOMY) that values
From: Michael Perelman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/3/02 3:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22284] Re: RE: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values
today that depend on conditions in the future.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -
I agree with you, except the algebraic theory presumes ex ante -- values
today that depend on conditions in the future.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:45AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
>
> I've argued in the past (e.g., my 1990 article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL
> ECONOMY) that values make sense as
Michael Perelman writes:>They [Schwartz and Miyachi] seem to look at the
value of the depreciated computer EX POST -- after the fact. The problem
that i see is ex ante. How do you set the value of the product made with
the computer years before the depreciation occurs? I can expect a future
pat
on 2/3/02 02:40 PM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is the difference between Justin and Miyachi and my understanding.
>
> They seem to look at the value of the depreciated computer EX POST --
> after the fact. The problem that i see is ex ante. How do you set the
> value o
Michael: Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer.
Some of
the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea
how
long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you
have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value
transfer
The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important
point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to
calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic
formula
C+V+S
Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you
ha
Here is the difference between Justin and Miyachi and my understanding.
They seem to look at the value of the depreciated computer EX POST --
after the fact. The problem that i see is ex ante. How do you set the
value of the product made with the computer years before the depreciation
occurs?
>
>
>The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important
>point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to
>calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic
>formula
>
>C+V+S
>
>Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the
on 2/3/02 10:39 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of
> the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how
> long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you
> have fo
1999. "Marx, Devalorisation, and the Theory of Value." Cambridge Journal
of Economics, 23: 6 (November): pp. 719-28.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:11:37PM -0600, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> Full cite please Michael?
>
> >I wrote about this in more detail a few years ago in the Cambridge
> Journal
>
Full cite please Michael?
>I wrote about this in more detail a few years ago in the Cambridge
Journal
>of Economics.
Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of
the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how
long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you
have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value transfers
to the
on 2/3/02 08:21 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important
> point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to
> calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic
> formula
>
>
The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important
point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to
calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic
formula
C+V+S
Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you
h
25 matches
Mail list logo
