Louis wrote:
>I doubt if this "transformation problem" will ever go away if it is posed
>in terms of a correct mathematical paradigm.
Right. Most of the literature wallows around in math that conceals more
than it reveals. Many authors actively eschew philosophical reflection
about what they'r
--
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:38:45 Louis Proyect wrote:
>The latest Science and Society has an interesting article (Rhetoric and
>Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New Orthodox Marxism) by
>editor Dave Laibman. It is a response to one written by Andrew Kliman and
>Ted McGlone titled
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect >>
Lou loves to draw demarcation lines a
Don't forget, Marx considered circus performance to be productive labor.
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Now wait just a gosh-darned minute. I regarded [being called a clown] a
compliment.
Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major mistake of the
economics profession was in developing the theory of value for commodities that
derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional cases, instead
of focusing on the general case, *reproducible commoditi
What Brad writes is perfectly consistent with Marx's labor theory of value [with
one exception], although numerous comentators pretend to have discovered some
glaring defect. The exception is that things can have exchange value even if they
are not scarce -- I will leave out all the asterisks. C
JD>>
I think that for Marx, as with Locke, nature has no value _in society_
unless someone mixes labor with it. Both present theories of society when
they present their labor theories.
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have p
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:09:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a (poor)
theory of why some people have property and some people have more than
others in society. Every few years I try to convince peop
At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
>authors. Their work is not a defense of "orthodox Marxist value theory"
>but a radical break with it. In fact, I see their critique to be so
>destructive of what we know as Mar
Justin wrote:
> << The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
> who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Louis Proyect >>
Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
raise passions. I thoug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
><< The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
> who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Louis Proyect >>
>
>Lo
>Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major
>mistake of the
>economics profession was in developing the theory of value for
>commodities that
>derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional
>cases, instead
>of focusing on the general case, *reproducible
Ian wrote:
>My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian
>theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms] which
>took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that
>needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques h
I wrote:
><< Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a
>(poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more
>than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to
>change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theo
>At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, Jim Devine wrote:
>alternatively, the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models
>that don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components
>of capitalist reality. I, for one, don't know enough about the TSS to
>conclude that all of its
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:40:03 Michael Perelman wrote:
>Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
>raise passions. I thought that Jim's response to him was measured.
I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the debate
on val
>Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
>value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
>enterprise.
>
>Doug
I stand corrected. However, I was referring to billionaire entrepreneurs
who after the revolution really need to be exiled to Catalina or some
Vol. 3, p. 745 (International edition)
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 A
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwo
These two statements are not mutually contradictory.
Brad DeLong wrote:
> >
> >Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor
> >nor surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are
> >_accidental_ (a disequilibrium phenomenon).
>
> They are not a disequilibrium
Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen
is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not
very cost-efficient.
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one wo
>
> If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
> make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that
> the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction...
>
> Brad DeLong
===
So math has no value?
Ian
rstand what is going on. If so
perhaps you could explain it in terms a non-economist might comprehend.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:2285] Re: RE: R
I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, > the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
capi
Fabian Balardini wrote:
>
> I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
>debate on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two
>years I have reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest?
yes, but the abov
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost
>nothing, no
>matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components
>of capital,
>but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
>productive power to labo
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
>BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
>conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
>Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
>an e-mail discussion
27 matches
Mail list logo
