Dear Nancy,
I am responding, very late, to your pen-l e-m re LTV, the rich and the poor,
partially copied below. If you are at all interested in democratically
reducing the growing, harmful, and obscene "gap between the rich and the
poor" rather than simply understanding it "
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27430] Re: specifics from ANTHRO-L critics re: LTV
Nancy writes:> I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from la
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27427] Re: specifics from ANTHRO-L critics re: LTV
Nancy wrote:>I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from la
Title: re: specifics from ANTHRO-L critics re: LTV
[I sent this only to Nancy by mistake. Nancy, if you reply, please reply to this version.]
Nancy B. writes:>I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some
specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value.
made clear; see comments above. Second, as Jim D. pointed
out in a response to your initial post, Marx affirms exactly the point made in
the second sentence above [see KI: 131], so it can't constitute a refutation of
the LTV as Marx understands it. Third, the first sentence begs the
>
>I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments
>from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following
>have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, but from supply
>and demand.
THe following examples all concern price fluctautio
G'day Nancy,
> 1. Supply and demand is the constraint [on the amount of value in the
> world at any given time, since it isn't labor]. It doesn't matter how
> much something cost, in labor, materials, etc. if there is no demand
> for the item. It's just supply and demand. I've seen two recent
>
I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, but from supply and demand.
1. Supply and demand is the constraint [on the amount of valu
Chris Burford :
>Could he illustrate what generalities he takes
> for granted and how he uses them in analysis?
I see Indian state as a properly constituted bourgeois state, with
bourgeoisie
and workers as the most important classes. Indian nation-state is free and
independent. I take these gene
e do with the small package that has been
agreed or does it need a package of the order of 10 times this amount?
Stuff has been published to support both propositions. It is not without
empirical evidence to think Africa needs 10 times as much.
If so, what are the general reasons for this?
At 28/06/02 07:07 +0530, you wrote:
>Chris Burford :
> > What *is* difficult is the nature of the alliance between progressive
> > people in the imperialist west and the mass of people in the LDC's.
>
>Please allow me to ask some questions.
>
>What or how much Western Marxists know really know abo
>>You are absolutely right in your fundamental perception that the
>>distribution of exchange value is a zero sum game.
>>
By this do you mean that Marx thought that value is not created in
"distribution" of exchange values, i.e., in what he calls circulation? So
that if one exchanger gains v
LTV and income disparity
by Nancybrumback
25 June 2002 15:59 UTC
CB: I'm thinking the zero-sum effect is not inherently related to the labor theory of
value or the law of value, but to the notion of a finite amount of wealth. The labor
theory of value speaks to the source of
Burford:
>The most important circumstance is that with rising capitalist
>productivity, which Marx recognised vividly in a text like the Communist
>Manifesto, the sum total of use values, of products of social labour, in
>the world can increase.
The Communist Manifesto was written before V. 1
At 25/06/02 11:22 -0700, you wrote:
>Nancy, to reconcile what Gil says below with what I said: we really don't
>disagree (on this point).
I am glad Nancy, you are getting thoughtful responses to your question. In
haste this morning and needing to catch the time and tide. Forgive me for
stati
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27183] Re: LTV and income disparity
Nancy, to reconcile what Gil says below with what I said: we really don't disagree (on this point). But he's referring to an absolute definition of poverty, whereas I was referring to both absolute and relative definitions of pov
or theory of value to be able to meet all their
arguments. In the meantime, I have brushed up on the idea of the
fetishism of commodities, and do understand a little bit more.
but i wondered if anyone of the many who know more about marxism would be
willing to comment: does the LTV show that the r
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27175] LTV and income disparity
(is the font on this missive readable? This is supposedly in "plain text.")
Nancy Brumback writes: >... a few months ago, i was discussing the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of the labor theory of value. to me,
idea of the fetishism of commodities, and do understand a little bit more.
but i wondered if anyone of the many who know more about marxism would be willing to comment: does the LTV show that the rich and the poor are directly connected in that the more the rich get, the less the poor get? If so
I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS CRITICISM OF YOUR IDEA THAT WE ONLY
NEED EXPLOITATION NOT VALUE THEORY.
>
>More on your papers as I read through them.
>
I'm tuckered out on value theory. But as a matter of philosophy of social
science, I note that it was never an objection of mind that
CBThe laws of physics are formulated with plenty of exceptions. Take the
>first law of Newton and Galilei as presented by Einstein below. The clause
>"removed sufficiently far from other bodies" is a ceteris paribus clause
>and implies exceptions to the law ( i.e. when the body is not removed
>^
>
>CB: Are you saying that probablistic laws are not fuzzier than laws that
>are more definitive ?
Depends on the probablistic laws. The laws of quantum mechanics are as
precise as can be. So too are the laws of Mendelian genetics. Essentially
they can predict the probabilities the
Chris, Marx puts the dynamism in, in part, by saying that value represents
the cost of REPRODUCTION, not production. This is a key element in his
analysis of the devalorization of capital.
Chris Burford wrote:
> At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
> >This definition of course does not capture t
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
07 February 2002 06:13 UTC
> >CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike
> >explanation ? ( no fuzzy answers)
> >
>
>The explanations invoked in physics are lawful, i.e., they use preciselt
>formula
Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.
>Rakesh,
>
>>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>
>>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which
>>potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and
>>necessary form of appearance units
>
>And how could Marx define the "absolute general law of capitalist
>accumulation" in the way he does in Ch XXV if his theory of value
>was not
>a) dynamic
>b )systemic?
>
>
>
>Mine is not an overimaginative reading of the overall thrust of
>Marx's approach, (although unimaginative readings of
[this was sent by mistake, before I finished it.]
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory
>>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?<<
Justin responds:> Not merely. Marx attempted to use value theory to do a lot
of work, e.g., as part od [of?] a theory of crisis, as a component of his
account of commod
Rakesh,
>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):
>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in
>a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.
This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 19:49 UTC
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What
LOV and LTV
by Carrol Cox
06 February 2002 20:42 UTC
Charles, some where in Anti-Duhring Engels says that dialectics neither
proves anything nor discovers anything new. Sorry I can't quote it
exactly or give you an exact cite. Some writer used that as a text on
the basis of whi
>But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
>of us would merely call a labor theory of prices?
Not merely. Marx attemptedto use value theory to do a lot of work, e.g., as
part od a theory of crisis, as a component of his account of commodity
fetishism, as an accou
At 06/02/02 20:10 -0800, you wrote:
>This definition of course does not capture the systemic and dynamic
>features which Chris B is attempting to build into his definition.
"The law of value of commodities ultimately determines how much of its
disposable working-time society can expend on each
At 07/02/02 06:07 +, you wrote:
>>CB: In this sense, Marx's "value" is not heuristic, but a fundamental
>>theoretical concept.
>
>I'm not persuaded.
>
>jks
Nobody has to be persuaded of anything.
But Justin, do you accept that what you criticise as being redundant some
of us would merely
> >CB: What's the difference between a lawful explanation and a lawlike
> >explanation ? ( no fuzzy answers)
> >
>
>The explanations invoked in physics are lawful, i.e., they use preciselt
>formulated lawsto generate specific (if sometimes probabilistic)
>predictions.
>
>^^
>
>CB: Of cours
As with most definitional debates or what seems futile hairsplitting
and mere semantics, the hope is that clarity as to definitions will
help prevent confusion and mutual incomprehension at a later stage in
the debate. For example, I think much of the debate in value theory
could be more produ
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 20:05 UTC
I
>think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he
>proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of
>giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or
&
: LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 19:49 UTC
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What
Charles Brown wrote:
>
> Myself, I would not give dialectics a lesser status than full theoretical concepts.
>I was edified by THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST , well, sort of as a heuristic in coming
>to an understanding of dialectics as more than a heuristic , as Marx , Engels and
>Lenin use dia
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 19:08 UTC
Charles writes:
> Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort of
ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types
> > I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see
>if
> > you disagree. jks
>
>What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
>as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible,
>capitalism
>can not experience crises. Rosa Lux
A wonderful story on heuristics.
Back in the fall of 1970 I got subpoened by a legislative commit6ee
investigating campus disorders. They were a bunch of buffoons -- as
shown beautifully by their interrogation of a professor of electrical
engineering from the U of I. He was a German emigre and st
JKS writes: >>> I have said as much here. But it's [the Marxian Law of Value
is] a far more limited heuristic than you seem to think. It's basically
useful for showing ina simple way that there's exploitation going on.
However, you can do this without it.<<<
quoth me: >>as I write on the margins
> I discuss this is What's Wrong with Exploitation?, look it up, and see if
> you disagree. jks
What is wrong is endegenous accumulation which is enabled by "exploitation"
as the profit source. And if endogenous accumulation is possible, capitalism
can not experience crises. Rosa Luxemburg unders
ink I have argued the point. I would very much
appreciate if you would send me the _papers_ (snail mail: 2227 Lincolnwood
Dr. Evanston IL 60201). I lack easy access to a U library, not being a
Professor anymore. I will do the same, if you like, with the papers I have
written attacking the util
>
>Another point on this is that for Marx "value" mainly applies to
>capitalism. Marx refers to the fruits of exploitation in pre-capitalist
>societies as "surplus-labor" ( see below) not "surplus value" . So, for
>Marx "value" is meant to convey the specific form of exploitation that
>predom
Title: Re: [PEN-L:22419] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV
and
Why is domination functional for increasing
exploitation? The answer highlights a third problem with Roemer's
argument which turns on a crucial assumption of his models. In these
what workers sell is labour, not labour power, or,
equiva
Another point on this is that for Marx "value" mainly applies to capitalism. Marx
refers to the fruits of exploitation in pre-capitalist societies as "surplus-labor" (
see below) not "surplus value" . So, for Marx "value" is meant to convey the specific
form of exploitation that predominates in
I
>think Marx was genuinely dialectical in a specific Hegelian sense--he
>proceeds by immanent critique, for example--but this isn't a matter of
>giving an alternative to explanation by means of probabalistic laws or
>tendecies, but rather a style of explanation that offers a framework for
>offer
>
> >I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
> >Exploitation? Nous 1995,
>
>At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
>tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
>acquired the belief that "What's Wrong with
>
>Charles writes:
> > Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort
>of
>ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
>...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types of ideas
>( that are more than heuristic ) that are used
Justin:
I don't think we are making progress here, hadn't we best stop?
Charles: Well sure, but we know the issue will rise again on the list. It is one of
the regular recurring topics here.
CB: Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is?
Anyone interested in heuristics should consult a wonderful little book
called _How to Solve It_ by Georges Polya. The aim of heuristics
according to Polya is to "study the methods and rules of discovery and
invention." People like Polya (a
Charles writes:
> Can we get into a little more what a heuristic is ? Seems to be a sort of
ok device for guiding scientific enquire, but sort of not a fulfledged
...what ? Theoretical concept ? What is the term for other types of ideas
( that are more than heuristic ) that are used in scienti
t: [PEN-L:22404] LOV and LTV
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 04:42 UTC
BTW, the "laws" of supply & demand are also non-determinist. S&D cannot
give
specific answers to anything in the abstract. Rather, they have to be
given
empirical content. S&D might best
LOV and LTV
by Justin Schwartz
05 February 2002 05:13 UTC
>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a
LOV and LTV
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 04:42 UTC
Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.
At 05/02/02 04:43 +, you wrote:
>>Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV
>>approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For
>>Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree
>>the merits of such an approach,
- Original Message -
From: "Davies, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22376] RE: Re: RE: Re: LOV and LTV
>I have said as much here. But it's a far more limited heuristic
than you
Justin wrote:
>I have argued this point ins ome detail in my What's Wrong with
>Exploitation? Nous 1995,
At this point I must once more apologise for having taken a somewhat snippy
tone in this thread; it is entirely because I am an idiot. I seem to have
acquired the belief that "What's Wrong
Devine, James wrote:
>I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
>"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
>Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
>
>Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precise
I wrote: >>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's
"laws" are dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in
Justin's terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.<<
Justin writes: > How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated
relatoon among
>
>The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
>Robinson's observation that ownership is not an activity therefore it is
>not
>a productive activity, so any rewards to ownership must come out of someone
>else's production. But without somet
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> Of course, Marx's value theory -- or law of value -- is
> also a heuristic.
>
Isn't that the primary function of most (or all) "laws"? The Law of
Value serves primarily to focus attention on (a) the historicity of
capitalism and (b) the oranization and temporal all
oitation (defined in Roemer's
sense) is a result of social factors rather than technical ones; I don't
think you can do this without ending up committed to something which has
most of the characteristics of the LTV.
The clearest non-LTV demonstration that there is exploitation is Joan
Robin
>Marx uses the word "law" differently than Justin does. Marx's "laws" are
>dialectical, non-deterministic. But many interpret his ideas in Justin's
>terms, "proving" that Marx was a determinist.
How do you get "deterministic" out of "precisely formulated relatoon among
variables"? The laws of
>
>Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence of the LOV
>approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of demarcation. For
>Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization". Many might agree
>the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident that Marx an
Chris B. writes: >Obviously I am in general sympathy with Charles's defence
of the LOV approach, but I think Justin helpfully pinpoints a line of
demarcation. For Justin a "law" is a "precisely formulable generalization".
Many might agree the merits of such an approach, but I am fairly confident
t
Chris wrote:
> The statement about the "law of value of commodities
> in Ch XIV Section 4 goes on to say "But this constant
> tendency to equlibirum ... is exercised only in the
> shape of a reaction against the constant upsetting of
> this equilbrium." This to my mind makes it sound much
> mor
At 04/02/02 15:37 -0500, you wrote:
> >
>Chris Burford:>I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set
>of LTV, sustains
> >an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation:
> >
> >the value of something is its labour content (with
>
> CB: The problem I see with this is that increasing productive capacity of
the men in the trade or increase productivity would seem to be defined by
fewer human labor time per unit commodity. How can that result in more work
for men (people) ?
>
And yet, it has been a historical fact for long
>
Chris Burford:>I suggest that approaching these debates with the mind set of LTV,
sustains
>an assumption which is essentially about a simple equation:
>
>the value of something is its labour content (with various subtleties added
>about terminology and more or lessness)
LOV or LTV
by Romain Kroes
03 February 2002 14:48
> Crudely, the difference between LTV and LOV is the difference between a
> simple equation, which may indeed be weak nourishment, and a dynamic
system.
>
> IMHO
>
> Chris Burford
I agree with the authenticity of L
Penner's I'm having big time troubles with my sound card so I've
been unable to respond because of the devaluation of my software!
Should be back soon; glad to see we're zooming around in
fractals
Ian
>
>Quite rightly, these fundamental questions come round and go round.
>
>I have not been able to keep up with all the recent posts. But I notice
>that some of the debate is using the abbreviation LTV.
>
>Marx and Engels never used the term Labour Theory of Value, nor did
> Crudely, the difference between LTV and LOV is the difference between a
> simple equation, which may indeed be weak nourishment, and a dynamic
system.
>
> IMHO
>
> Chris Burford
I agree with the authenticity of LOV rather than LTV. Nevertheless, a
"simple equation&
the social
relations of production of capitalism as a whole and in microcosm.
Jim D
-Original Message-
From: Chris Burford
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2/2/02 11:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:22261] LOV or LTV
Quite rightly, these fundamental questions come round and go round.
I have not been able to ke
Quite rightly, these fundamental questions come round and go round.
I have not been able to keep up with all the recent posts. But I notice
that some of the debate is using the abbreviation LTV.
I suggest that this slants the debate and makes it more likely that people
will talk past each
BANKRUPT LTV STEEL TO PAY $ 14 MILLION DOLLARS IN
EXECUTIVE BONUSES
from the CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER :
LTV proposes bonus plan
Saturday, March 17, 2001
By CHRIS SEPER and SANDRA LIVINGSTON
PLAIN DEALER REPORTERS
YOUNGSTOWN - LTV Corp
in reply to my query about Rod's seven point plan for simplifying the LTV,
where i had trouble with point 4 about the necessity to have parasites
prior to surplus.
i said in a parasite free world the consumption workers have to make a
surplus to feed the capital goods workers.
he replied t
> Dear Neri,
>
> Now I will like to make a few points:
>
> First, Stigler did not rely on this letter for his thesis of 93% LTV in
> Ricardo. He relies on the PRINCIPLES, where it is stated, in black and white,
> that the divergence of relative value from relative l
ange for each other,
is not well founded' I acknowledge that it is not rigidly true, but I say that
it is the nearest approximation to truth, as a rule for measuring relative
value, of any I have ever heard; ..."
Now I will like to make a few points:
First, Stigler did not rely on th
Dear Paul Cockshott,
I'm a newcomer to Pen and have read with considerable interest your
postings on a variety of subjects related to the socialist project.
In yours of April 14 you mention your five year project geared toward the
development of an alternative socialist economic design, or perha
he labour theory of value arose from very
practical political considerations. If the LTV is just treated as
a scholastic exercise it is pointless. The point is to apply it concretely
to understanding the contemporary economy a
Dear Ajit,
the following from Ch. 1 of the book by Kurz and myself can be useful to you.
While Smith had a clear understanding of the tendency for the rate of profits to
uniformity in competitive conditions, he had failed to provide a consistent and
logically sound solution to the problem of ho
MORE DEFENSIVE POSTURING (Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!): (2 pages)
A not-always-clearly-articulated subtext of the recent round
of LTV debate between myself and Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell had
to do with the issue of environmental policy under socialism. As
noted recently Soviet policy was
gain, that is his assertion, not
something proved, that depends on the fundamental assumption of
the LTV holding for capitalismperiod.
I have not disputed that a simple test of direct inputs will
show labor explaining price (value?) in actually existing market
capitalisms better than
Cheers, Ajit Sinha
>
Hi, Ajit!
Actually, the more I look over the postings on LTV, the more I am
inclined to think it is not a debate but, rather, a puzzle. That is,
I'm not certain that the position that Allin Cottrell and Paul Cockshott
advance is so different
llow, depending upon the answer!
>
> Cheers, Ajit Sinha
>
Hi, Ajit!
Actually, the more I look over the postings on LTV, the more I am
inclined to think it is not a debate but, rather, a puzzle. That is,
I'm not certain that the
No matter how much I would like to keep out of this debate, I have to ask you a
simple Mike. How do you make the quantitative relation between abstract labor
and money? Other questions will follow, depending upon the answer!
Cheers, Ajit Sinh
or was Ricardo a minor pre-Marxian?
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
if bitnet address fails, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just as a footnote to Mike Lebowitz's posting, what was new in Marx was his
attempt to treat the rather flat classical political economy concepts as
Hegelian -- in the sense that he was arguing that the classical political
economists had stumbled upon categories that expressed more about the econo
Finally! Classes for this term are over, and I can now
make a few comments in relation to Allin Cottrell's defence
of the LTV. Although I don't think Allin answered all of the
points I raised (18/3), he did object to my question, "how
is this [identical, homogeneous, univ
A CRITIQUE OF STIGLER INTERPRETATION OF 93% LTV IN RICARDO
By Ajit Sinha
In my opinion George Stigler has made a SERIOUS mistake in interpreting Ricardo
in his 'Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value'. He is quite right wh
Barkley,
On the subject of your rejoinders to Paul Cockshott (with
which I concur), have you seen Arun Bose's excellent volume,
_Marx on exploitation and inequality_, Oxford University
Press, Delhi, 1980?
In that he crafts a number of axioms (working from what he
calls "Marx's capital theory of v
onialism, imperialism, exploitation, etc.)?
Clearly this puts the LTV in the position of an assumed
prior belief: let labor be the exogenous unproduced source of
value, even though it is clear that in production terms it (even
the most basic form) is produced by labor and food and that the
la
although oil by itself is clearly more homogeneous than either
"land" or labor. Going to the non-renewables as sources of value
I think sends one to a multi-source, GE theory of some sort. This
is probably the most serious alternative to the LTV, but that does
not mean I think it
although oil by itself is clearly more homogeneous than either
"land" or labor. Going to the non-renewables as sources of value
I think sends one to a multi-source, GE theory of some sort. This
is probably the most serious alternative to the LTV, but that does
not mean I think it
Time to try to answer some of Barkley Rosser's questions.
1. There were two main aspects of my postings on the LTV, relating
respectively to the formation of prices in capitalist economies and to
the issue of rational costing in a planned economy. In my last posting
(part 12) I argued
Time to try to answer some of Barkley Rosser's questions.
1. There were two main aspects of my postings on the LTV, relating
respectively to the formation of prices in capitalist economies and to
the issue of rational costing in a planned economy. In my last posting
(part 12) I argued
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
