I'm not sure what you are unclear about, Paul. You use the expression "a monetary and the value measure of prices." I don't think value in Marx's theory is a measure. Value is rather that which all commodities have in common, the "third thing" behind exchange-values. VALUE has two measures, acording to the first page of Ch. 3, labor-time and money. In one sense, "price" is value measured in money. But Marx also uses price in a different sense: to refer, not to the measure of value, but to the magnitude of value. I.e., price in this sense is an amount of value received for something that differs from its own value. The concept of price of production uses "price" in this sense. Marx's values and his prices of production are both measured in money. They must have the same measure or it would be impossible to say that they are unequal. So "price" as value received in exchange can be measured in both labor-time and money, and the commodity's value (value produced) can be measured in both labor-time and money. Of these 4 possibilities, 3 appear directly in Marx's work, all but the labor-time measure of value received in exchange, and it follows naturally from what he says. "Prices equals values," as I noted, is Marx's expression. Andrew Kliman ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 9:10 PM Subject: [OPE-L:4335] Re: Re: Price-Value Equivalence! : 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