[ show plain text ]
At 10:47 09/06/00 -0400, ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu wrote:
>>Re Paul C's 3459
>
>>I think that you are confusing value with exchange value here. To operate
>>effectively as an exchange value it must be sold, but it has value
>>independently
>>of being sold. Value and exchange value are not the same thing. Exchange
>>value is the form of representation of value to the economic agents, but is
>>not itself value.
>
>Well, I emphasize distinction between value and price because even upon
>measurement of commodities there is no good clasical knowlege that comes of
>it. Wavefunctions collapse into measurements; values remain unknown even
>after price measurement (some of the reasons why have already been
>elucidated by Michael P).
>
I have no objection to maintaining a distinction between value and price
since price is a form of representation of value not value itself. Whilst
prices correlate well with values they are not values, nor do they exactly
measure them.
What I object you is your slide towards instrumentalist subjectivism with
the suggestion that unless values are represented as prices they do not exist.
If you recognise them as distinct concepts, then one can accept that value
exists even if it has not been measured.
Paul Cockshott (clyder@gn.apc.org)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT