[ show plain text ]
I attach a section from a paper written with Allin a few years ago, Values
Law Values Metric
that responded to mirowskis comparison of field versus substance theories of
value.
----- Original Message -----
From: ·ùµ¿¹Î <rieudm@cuvic.cnu.ac.kr>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:24 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2986] Query
> Nowadays, I'm reading Philip Mirowski's book, _More Heat Than Light_
which, I remember, was citied affirmatively by Andrew somewhere(Actually, I
wonder if my remembrance is correct. If not, I'm sorry, Andrew).
>
> BTW. Mirowski talks about two versions of Marx's labor theory of value,
i.e.
> (1) substance theory & (2) real cost theory. And he argues that "[In real
cost theory], all history is defined away as irrelevant"(p.181). For
example, Mirowski says that "in the real-cost labor theory, turnover is
meaningless, because depreciation and hence turnover are simultaneously
determined along with the magnitudes of the labor vlaues..."(p.183).
>
> To my understanding, TSS theory can be classified as REAL COST THEORY. At
the same time, it emphasizes the importance of history in the sense that the
value of constant inputs must be calculated as their purchasing prices.
> How these two positions can be compatible? Or, how Mirowski's book can be
cited affirmatively by TSS theorists?
> This is my query, especially to Andrew.
>
> Dong-Min Rieu
> Dept. of Economics, Chungnam National University
> 220 Kung-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Taejon 305-764, Korea(S.)
> rieudm@cuvic.cnu.ac.kr
> http://business.chungnam.ac.kr/~dmryu
>
> ----- ¿øº» ¸Þ½ÃÁö -----
> º¸³½ »ç¶÷: Andrew_Kliman <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com>
> ¹Þ´Â »ç¶÷: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> º¸³½ ³¯Â¥: 2000³â 4¿ù 28ÀÏ ±Ý¿äÀÏ ¿ÀÈÄ 4:51
> Á¦¸ñ: [OPE-L:2918] Determination of Value Transferred
>
>
> > Fred and I have been discussing whether, in Marx's theory, the sum of
> > value transferred from means of production to products is determined by
> > the current cost of the means of production when they enter production
or
> > by their post-production replacement cost.
> >
> > This message, and the three posts that accompany it, continue my end of
> > the discussion, supplementing my OPE-L 2603. The accompanying posts are
> > the sections of a recent paper of mine, "The Need for a Genuinely
> > Empirical Criterion of Decidability among Interpretations." "Need 1" is
> > section 1 of the paper. "Need 2" is section 2. "Need 3" includes
> > section 3, references, and endnotes.
> >
> > This paper is a response to a paper that Fred presented at the EEA
> > conference last month. His paper, in turn, is a critique of a paper of
> > mine that I posted to the list last year, which has been published in
the
> > latest volume (1999) of _Beitraege zur Marx-Engels Forschung_. (This
> > volume also carries papers by Chris Arthur, Alejandro Ramos, Georg
> > Stamatis -- the editor of the courageous journal _Political Economy_ --
> > and others you might know.)
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT