Let me begin by congratulating Allin on the most
articulate and well-reasoned defense of the labor theory of
value that I have seen. I note that at its core are three
arguments: a) labor is the most "socially important" factor
of production (I agree), b) empirically LTV works not too
badly
Let me begin by congratulating Allin on the most
articulate and well-reasoned defense of the labor theory of
value that I have seen. I note that at its core are three
arguments: a) labor is the most "socially important" factor
of production (I agree), b) empirically LTV works not too
badly
RE: LTV Defense
I have found Allin's "defense of the LTV" interesting, but there are
a couple of questions it raises.
I have already stated that what Allin defended was not Marx's
labor theory of value--something which Allin did not strenuously
object to.
But I would also
RE: LTV Defense
I have found Allin's "defense of the LTV" interesting, but there are
a couple of questions it raises.
I have already stated that what Allin defended was not Marx's
labor theory of value--something which Allin did not strenuously
object to.
But I would also
it's Oscar Lange's aphorism, I believe, that says that neoclassical
economics is the economics of socialism.
Gee, should I reply to Allin's contribution, setting off a long debate??
No way: too much work to do already.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL P
it's Oscar Lange's aphorism, I believe, that says that neoclassical
economics is the economics of socialism.
Gee, should I reply to Allin's contribution, setting off a long debate??
No way: too much work to do already.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL P
What's special about labor? (concluded)
===
1. Whose aphorism was it, that Marxian economics is the economics
of capitalism, while neoclassical economics is the economics of
socialism? You can see the general idea: Marxian categories are fine
for exposing the injustic
What's special about labor? (concluded)
===
1. Whose aphorism was it, that Marxian economics is the economics
of capitalism, while neoclassical economics is the economics of
socialism? You can see the general idea: Marxian categories are fine
for exposing the injustic
Returning to the specialness of labor
=
1. Can one in principle construct an X-theory of value (an XTV),
substituting some other item in place of the labor of the LTV?
(Barkley Rosser, 3/21/94, suggests land.) And if so, does that mean
that the LTV has n
Returning to the specialness of labor
=
1. Can one in principle construct an X-theory of value (an XTV),
substituting some other item in place of the labor of the LTV?
(Barkley Rosser, 3/21/94, suggests land.) And if so, does that mean
that the LTV has n
Roemer on exploitation (continued)
==
1. As noted last time, classical Marxism involves the assumption that
all capitalists and no workers are exploiters, while all workers and no
capitalists are exploited. Roemer calls this the 'Class-Exploitation
Correspondence Principl
Roemer on exploitation (continued)
==
1. As noted last time, classical Marxism involves the assumption that
all capitalists and no workers are exploiters, while all workers and no
capitalists are exploited. Roemer calls this the 'Class-Exploitation
Correspondence Principl
Roemer and exploitation (first part of two on this topic)
===
[Note: LTV part 8 raised the subject of the 'specialness' of labor.
This has several dimensions, but in this message and the next I focus
on labor's specialness as it relates to *exploitation* -- hence getting
Roemer and exploitation (first part of two on this topic)
===
[Note: LTV part 8 raised the subject of the 'specialness' of labor.
This has several dimensions, but in this message and the next I focus
on labor's specialness as it relates to *exploitation* -- hence getting
LTV defense: interim responses
==
1. There are still a few more instalments of my "LTV defense" to
come, before the whole structure -- or at least a sketch of it -- is "on
the table" for criticism. Nonetheless, it would be churlish to plough
LTV defense: interim responses
==
1. There are still a few more instalments of my "LTV defense" to
come, before the whole structure -- or at least a sketch of it -- is "on
the table" for criticism. Nonetheless, it would be churlish to plough
On the specialness of labor
===
1. Everybody knows that human labor is a special process and labor-
power a very special commodity. But a certain sort of hard-nosed
theorist is very unwilling to grant labor any special theoretical privilege.
This attitude, although I
On the specialness of labor
===
1. Everybody knows that human labor is a special process and labor-
power a very special commodity. But a certain sort of hard-nosed
theorist is very unwilling to grant labor any special theoretical privilege.
This attitude, although I
Does the LTV have a mechanism? (continued)
===
[Note: Heading towards the home stretch now, though it might take a
couple more postings than I thought. Thank you for your patience. I
intended to send this message hot on the heels of the last one in
case anyone wa
Does the LTV have a mechanism? (continued)
===
[Note: Heading towards the home stretch now, though it might take a
couple more postings than I thought. Thank you for your patience. I
intended to send this message hot on the heels of the last one in
case anyone wa
Does the LTV have a mechanism?
==
1. I want to get on to Roemer, Elster and exploitation, but first I think
I need to address a concern that I suspect may be building in some
quarters. I have stressed the empirical validity of the LTV, but I
suspect that will not
Does the LTV have a mechanism?
==
1. I want to get on to Roemer, Elster and exploitation, but first I think
I need to address a concern that I suspect may be building in some
quarters. I have stressed the empirical validity of the LTV, but I
suspect that will not
1. Now I want to make a point that requires development in several
directions, but which is in itself very simple.
2. Suppose that labor-values and Sraffian prices are, as I have said,
about equally good as predictors of actual prices. Are there then any
grounds for preferring one theory
1. Now I want to make a point that requires development in several
directions, but which is in itself very simple.
2. Suppose that labor-values and Sraffian prices are, as I have said,
about equally good as predictors of actual prices. Are there then any
grounds for preferring one theory
Back to Steedman
[Note: I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome too rapidly. I think it
will take about 10 messages in all, of roughly this length, to get the
position I'm peddling "out into the open" -- perhaps Michael P can tell
me to shut up if necessary.]
1. What does on
Back to Steedman
[Note: I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome too rapidly. I think it
will take about 10 messages in all, of roughly this length, to get the
position I'm peddling "out into the open" -- perhaps Michael P can tell
me to shut up if necessary.]
1. What does on
1. At this point I shall digress briefly to cover a flank, i.e. to address a
concern that I suspect many students of Marxism may have.
2. I appear to be treating the LTV and the Sraffian system as
alternative theories of (the "systematic component" of) relative prices.
But isn't this to
1. At this point I shall digress briefly to cover a flank, i.e. to address a
concern that I suspect many students of Marxism may have.
2. I appear to be treating the LTV and the Sraffian system as
alternative theories of (the "systematic component" of) relative prices.
But isn't this to
First substantive remarks: On Sraffa-Steedman
==
1. There is no doubt a nice Latin name for the fallacy of seeking to
defend one's own position by attacking one's opponent's.
Nonetheless I will open by doing exactly that. Why? Because there
is
First substantive remarks: On Sraffa-Steedman
==
1. There is no doubt a nice Latin name for the fallacy of seeking to
defend one's own position by attacking one's opponent's.
Nonetheless I will open by doing exactly that. Why? Because there
is
Emboldened by positive remarks from some pen-lers I hereby
embark on a defense of the classical labor theory of value (LTV),
or something closely resembling it.
Preface
===
1. I realize that I have an uphill struggle ahead, given the volume
and authority of the critiques that are out
Emboldened by positive remarks from some pen-lers I hereby
embark on a defense of the classical labor theory of value (LTV),
or something closely resembling it.
Preface
===
1. I realize that I have an uphill struggle ahead, given the volume
and authority of the critiques that are out
32 matches
Mail list logo
