Re: [OPE] peanut butter value-form theory

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:12 +0100, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> Philip Dunn wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 20:52 +0100, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> >
> >> Philip
> >> Also note that, in the TSSI, the MELT defined as total price over total
> >> value is equivalent to total money value added over total labour time of
> >> living labour. In this context, 'living labour commanded' and 'dead
> >> labour commanded' are equal.
> >> ----------------------------
> >> But does that not apply only at the average social level not for individual commodities even in the TSSI?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I think it does apply to the individual commodity level. Call the real
> > price of commodity x the dollar price times the real value of money
> > where the real value of money is aggregate labour-time over aggregate
> > dollar wages. Call the absolute price of commodity x the dollar price
> > times the absolute value of money where the absolute value of money is
> > aggregate labour time over aggregate money (dollars) value added.
> >
> > True in TSSI, the value of produced commodities deviates from their
> > absolute prices (dollars divided by TSSI MELT) -- except that constant
> > capital in the TSSI is valued at its absolute price!
> >
> > In a VF approach there no such deviations. Absolute price are equal to
> > intrinsic values.
> >
> In that case it seems pretty vacuous and untestable as theory.
> How can you empirically determine if it is true or false?
> >

It is just accounting. Empirical testability is not relevant. Value
accounting can be done whatever prices happen to be. One of its
advantage is that it maintains money as the universal equivalent. If
price value deviations are admitted money is an non-equivalent.

This is not to say that empirical predictions cannot be made.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Apr 7 19:15:13 2009