[ show plain text ]
On 31 May 2000, at 14:48, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> So Andrew, please excuse me for asking this question once again: are you
> saying that value is an intrinsic quantitative aspect or property the
> commodity possesses before it is measured in price terms. It is common
> sense to us that we can say something is long in such a qualitative
> formula before we replace it with a quantitative formula, say the length
> of x in cm equals y. But in the case of value, Marx does suggest that the
> qualitative formula can only follow or coincide with the quantitative one.
> That is, only after (or as) we determine the value of x in prices is $a.bc
> can we say that x had (or has) become a value.
A crucial question. I should like to think about it a precise answer
and get back to you.
(Ajit's point regarding quantitative aspects doesn't rest on the
precise answer: abstract labour time is still a distinct quantity from
price even though it is only through price that abstract labour gains
reality).
>
> Of course our problem of measuring values is hardly helped by the
> quantitization in prices of values. Prices and data based on them do not
> directly allow us to measure values. But quantitative marxists are
> obviously making heroic efforts.
I would have thought estimates of value can be greatly helped by
price data: one approach to measuring value is through modifying
national accounts (greatly) according to the notion of value (eg.
distinguishing unproductive and productive labour).
Thanks,
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT