Andrew, I'm not clear whether you still feel that there are both a monetary and the value measure of prices. If so, then wouldn't you want to stay with price-value equivalence rather than price=value.? Paul *********************************************************************** Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka "Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/27/00: >What say you to the "price = value" formulation? "Andrew_Kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com> said, on 10/27/00: >I'm continuing to use the expression "price = value," because value has a >twofold measure in Marx's theory (see first page of Ch. 3 of Capital I), >labor-time and money. (And he regularly referred to monetary sums as >values, as well as originating the phrase "price = value.") I think it >was only fairly recently that the idea arose that Marx's prices are >exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively >labor-time variables. For instance, Bortkiewicz did not think that, his >values and prices were both in money. His "transformatiuon problem" >concerned the magnitudes of values and prices, not their units of >measurement. The first authors I have found who held that Marx's prices >are exclusively monetary variables while his values are exclusively >labor-time variables are Abraham-Frois and Berribi, in a late-1970s book.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST