[ show plain text ]
Thanks to Gil for his clarification. I think I now understnad what he is
saying about the *irrelevance* of price value-equivalence. If he is right,
then of course the standard 'even if' argument that I re-posed is itself
irrelevant.
My own value-form type work tends to rather finesse the question of
price-value equivalence by suggesting (to caricature) something of a
price-value conflation (and then, perhaps,returning to the question of -
abstract - labour subsequently). Consequently I have to think about whether
price-value equivalence is irrelevant in the way that Gil argues. So no real
response yet. Watch this space!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:28 PM
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:3106] Fwd: Re: RE: starting points
Michael
"What is matter? - Never mind. What is mind? - No matter."
____________________
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
MK7 6HP
UK
tel: +1908 834876
[Home: +1703 768641]
fax: 0870 133 1147
mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk <mailto:mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk>
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 2000. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT