On Friday, June 13, 2003 at 16:57:18 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
Bill Lear wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2003 at 16:32:11 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
...
2) Why have prices increased over the long term despite constant
increases in productivity?
Marginal Greed and the power to exercise it?
Then
I have not been online for several days -- my server has been down. I am
now wading through a flood of e-mails in random order, so forgive me if
this has been said before.
I agree with Andrew. What happened in the late 19th C. was that tech.
changed devalued existing capital before costs could
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
I wrote:
My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It
was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall
and output prices stay constant, profits rise.
Drewk writes:
Right, Jim. But if *output* prices
A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing. -- Oscar Wilde
The law of value -- whether right or wrong, scientific or not -- is only one
side of the story, on the other side of which is to be found the dynamic,
might I say anti-capitalist, kernal. The other side is
, June 14, 2003 9:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
I wrote:
My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It
was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall
and output prices stay constant, profits rise.
Drewk writes:
Right
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability. But I don't see why Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall. A counter-example: it happens all the time that production is sped up -- raising output per unit of labor
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim Devine wrote:
"I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability."
Good.
"But I don't see why "Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices fall.""
Because the input prices that are rele
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
I wrote:
I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability.
Drewk:
Good.
I continued:
But I don't see why Output prices must fall BEFORE input prices
fall.
Drewk:
Because the input prices that are relevant to profit
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
[I'm sorry. By mistake, I sent this before I had finished. What follows is the finished version.]
I wrote: I agree that price falls _can_ cause falls in profitability.
Drewk: Good.
I continued: But I don't see why Output prices
, but I first want to try to clear up
the confusion that exists between Jim and me.
Andrew Kliman
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Devine, James
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law
Can I point out that the marxian law of value, probably cannot be
falsified, but may be true.
The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul Cockshott and Allin
Cottrell showing that it could fit with macroeconomic data, I think for
Scotland if I recall correctly.
Chris Burford
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Whether or not Marx's law of value is falsifiable depends on your interpretation of the LOV. I see it as a heuristic derived from Marx's materialist conception of history, looking at society as a process of collective labor. Heuristics
Our book (Shaikh Tonak, 1994, Measuring Wealth of Nations...) intended
to develop a consistent and applicable Marxian macroeconomic accounting
framework based on conventional system of national accounts. I am copying
the link to the Preface and 1st Chapter of the book:
This was unnecessary. First of all, the reasons that
have motivated most skeptics who have thought about
the matter to reject the LOV or LTV -- like me -- are
not that it is an unscientific notion that cannot be
falsified, but that it is a bad scientific notion
whose time is up bewcause it has
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
This was unnecessary. First of all, the reasons that
have motivated most skeptics who have thought about
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Chris Burford wrote:
Can I point out that the marxian law of value,
probably cannot be
falsified, but may be true.
The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul
Cockshott and Allin
Cottrell showing that it could fit
I'm not going to get into this again, and I did not mean this as an invitation to do so, or at least to involve me in it. My only point was that the unfalsifiability objection is quite different from the has-been-falsified objection (mine), whether the latter is right, as I think, or wrong, as Jim
I asked Jim D. a ? in response to his statements on the LOV. Here's his
response, which he ok'd to pass on.
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Ian Murray' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote:
We have to consider what the alternative to the LOV is. If
we reject
Chris Burford wrote:
the marxian law of value, probably cannot be
falsified, but may be true.
The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul Cockshott and
Allin Cottrell showing that it could fit with macroeconomic data,
I
think for Scotland if I recall correctly.
There have been numerous
Drewk wrote:
However, properly understood, the law of value does generate a
falsifiable hypothesis that has not been falsified: productivity
increases tend to reduce commodities' prices. My preliminary
computation for the US during the past 1/2 century indicates that
a 1 percentage point
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Drewk, thanks for the references and the useful critique of CC, Ochoa _et al_. I'll have to look at your paper. As mentioned, for me the law of value involves not only some correspondence between relative values and relative prices
On Friday, June 13, 2003 at 16:32:11 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
...
2) Why have prices increased over the long term despite constant
increases in productivity?
Marginal Greed and the power to exercise it?
Bill
Bill Lear wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2003 at 16:32:11 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
...
2) Why have prices increased over the long term despite constant
increases in productivity?
Marginal Greed and the power to exercise it?
Then the profit share should have risen too, no?
Doug
, 2003 4:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Drewk wrote:
However, properly understood, the law of value does generate a
falsifiable hypothesis that has not been falsified: productivity
increases tend to reduce commodities' prices. My preliminary
computation
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Drewk writes:
If
increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus,
and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris paribus
(which they do), then
doesn't it matter what comes first? if prices fall (say
Jim Devine wrote:
Drewk, thanks for the references and the useful critique of CC,
Ochoa _et al_.
De nada.
if it turned out that there was perfect correlation between
values and prices, it would be a strike against Marx's LOV.
I agree.
1. for Marx's LOV, shouldn't it be labor productivity
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Falsifiability and the law of value
Drewk writes:
If
increases in productivity imply falling prices, ceteris paribus,
and if falling prices imply falling profit rates, ceteris
paribus
(which they do), then
doesn't it matter what comes first? if prices fall (say, due
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
I wrote:
(In my opinion, MFP is a bogus concept. It's based on adding
apples (labor-power hired) and oranges (means of production) using
weights that assume that each factor is paid its marginal
product.)
Marx's notion of labor
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
My assertion wasn't based on Okishio or anything like that. It was based on accounting. If input prices (per unit of output) fall and output prices stay constant, profits rise.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
I argue that Marx's LTV is mainly a macro theory of profit, not a micro
theory of prices. From this perspective, the main empirical test of
Marx's LTV is the explanatory power of its theory of profit.
I have written a paper on this topic, Marx's Theory: True of False? A
Marxian Response to
://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Falsifiability and the law of value
Jim Devine wrote:
But if labor productivity rises (or wages fall) before prices
31 matches
Mail list logo
