Quite willing to at a later date Jerry, but only if you state whether you accept my argument that in Marx's theory of value, use-value can be quantitative. If you don't accept that--on the basis of my previous post (and all previous relevant ones! -:>), then there's no point discussing it further: we'll simply be arguing past each other, with you believing that use-value must be qualitative and hence dismissing my arguments. Cheers, Steve At 10:43 PM 3/15/01 -0500, you wrote: >Re Steve K's [5179]: > >The discussion with John was informative--in fact, John spotted the >numerical example which I had missed in my first reading of the >Grundrisse. But it failed to satisfy me for the same reason that your >comment fails to satisfy me, in that John would not accept the contention >that use-value could be quantitative. >---------- >*What is the unit of measurement, then, of use- >value? How is its magnitude measured?* >---------- >Far from being inconsistent with Marx's perspective on the creation of >value, it is integral to it: in the case of inputs to production, >use-value is *quantitative*, not qualitative. This is precisely the manner >in which he derives the result that labor-power is a source of >surplus-value in Capital: >--------------- >*Labor time can be measured -- even though it >gets tricky because what is being measured >is *socially necessary labor time* rather than >just labor time. If use value, you emphasize, >is quantitative then h-o-w is it measured?* >---------------- ><snip, JL> >in general, your statement above is an accurate statement of what Marx >claimed. However, it is *not* true of that one example I gave: there Marx >did quite explicitly--in his use-value/exchange-value language linked to >the issue of the *difference* between value creation and >depreciation--consider that the value transferred to output by a machine >could be greater than the value it contains: "It also has to be postulated >(which was not done above) that the use-value of the machine significantly >greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the service of >production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production." > >------------------------ >*Alas, you did not take up my challenge to defend >that interpretation by placing it +within the context+ >of the examples and paragraphs preceeding and >following the quote.* >In solidarity, Jerry Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, School of Economics and Finance UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY LOCKED BAG 1797 PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT