On Sat, 05 May 2001, you wrote: > Inspired by Nicky's [5487] -- excerpts of which > > Does Ockham's Razor then not suggest that we > should embrace VFT in preference to Marx's > theory? By the same token, does Ockham's Razor > suggest that we should embrace surplus approach > theory in preference to either VFT or Marx's > theory? > > > 1) to what extent can an appeal to empirical > evidence 'settle' the question of the superiority > of alternative paradigms? There is an extensive literature on the relationship between Occams razor and choice between theorems. This goes under the heading of the Mininum Description Length principle, for an exlanation see: http://www.cyc.com/tech-reports/act-cyc-234-90/section3_4.html#SECTION0004000000000000000 or do a web search on Minimum Description Length. Basically it says that given some observed data D, and given a choice of theorys T:A ,B, ... then the best theorem is the one which minimises I (D - P) + I (T) Where P is the prediction produced by theory T I(X) is the information content of a sequence. Thus this says that we chose the theorem for which the information content of the sum of the difference between prediction and obserervation plus the length of the theorem is minimised. The point being that one can always produce a better estimate of a dataset ( timeseries, set of prices, image, etc) by building additional constants into the theorem. The application of Minimum Description Length Theory to the labour theory of value is addressed in my and Allin's paper 'The scientific status of the Labour theory of Value', see: http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wpc_ac/wpc_ac.html ( the html version loses some of the precision of the mathematical typsetting in the original, if people want a PDF version I can supply it) It was presented to the IWGVT in 1997. The paper attempts to measure the formula above, or a simple derivation of it for 1. The simple labour theory of value 2. Sraffas formulation of price of production theory 3. The TSS theory of prices All theorems were used to predict the final price vector in the US input output table. Our conclusion was that MDL principle resulted in the classical labour theory of value being the most elegant. We did not evaluate value form theory in this comparison. As I understand it the value form theory makes no predictions about prices at all. At one level it is arguable that this is simpler than theories that try to predict prices, since given no prediction the value form theory would have information content i(D) i.e, it predicts nothing so that the information content of the data itself is the length of the theory. whereas the labour theory of value has information cost I(D-P) + I(T)+I(L)+I(A) where I(T ) is the encoding of the matrix formula for value, I(L) is the encoding of the vector of labour values, and I(A) is the encoding of the input output matrix. Even allowing for the sparseness of the matrix, the sum I(L)+I(A) is almost bound to be greater than I(D) since A is a square matrix and D is a vector. Thus in one sense it is almost certainly true that it is simpler just to take prices as given rather than to construct a theory to predict them, since the amount of data that one has to use as input to a price theory is almost certainly greater than the amount of data that one gets out. But is this a fair comparison? There are certainly fields of investigation where the observed data can be well predicted from a very short formula, for example lunar motion - where the data are essentially harmonic. Such data have inherently a low information content on grounds of Chaitin Kolmogrov complexity theory. If we look at other data - like observed air temperatures and pressures over central Europe on a 100 km grid over a 24 hour period, the data is computationally irreducible and can only be approximated by theorems which bring in a wealth of ancillary data relating to wind velocities, temperatures and pressures over a larger region and a finer grid. On one level it may be said that since we need so much additional data to predict the weather all climatic models are less elegant than simply observing the actual weather. But surely simple observing the weather or observing prices has less explanatory value than a theory which produces some reasonably accurate model of what actual weather or prices will be even if it has to use ancillary data to do this. A theory of prices or a theory of climate allows us to predict what prices or climate would be like if circumstances changed in some way. Post hoc observations whilst being cheaper in information content, provide no similar way of comparing alternative possibilities. The labour theory of value, along with an I/O table does enable us to say what for example the price consequences of a 50% increase in the labour content of electricity is likely to be. Value form theory, as I understand it, makes no predictions on this. >In practice, this > becomes a very difficult way of accessing > alternative theories. E.g. if we had a clear > opposition between one theory for which > money and labour-power must be commodities > and another theory in which they are not, > then empirical and historical evidence (in > addition to Ockham's razor) might suggest > which theory is preferable. There is not such > a 'clean' opposition, though, that can be tested > since the theory that held that labour-power > is a commodity also holds that it is a *unique* > commodity and that there may no longer be > a money commodity (pace Claus and Akira). > Even on the question of whether gold still is the > money commodity, we have seen ambiguous > empirical evidence. > > 2) one could suggest that the theory which > reconstructs (e.g. through the method of > systematic dialectics) in thought the 'essential' > inter-relationships that characterize the capitalist > mode of production in the 'simplest' and > 'clearest' way is the superior theory (this also > assumes Ockham's razor). Yet, this is a *very* > difficult thing to determine in practice for an > inherently complex system in which things are > by no means necessarily as they seem at the > surface level of appearances. Thus, that gets > us back to the question: how simple is *too* > simple? > > Thus, how *do* we have a 'cross-paradigm' > discussion about the merits of alternative theories > of capitalism without retrograding into a > discussion of Marx's perspective? > > At the IWGVT, Gary asked (following in the > tradition of Steedman) what (and here I am > paraphrasing) one theoretical perspective > (the TSSI) was able to tell us that surplus > approach theory couldn't. In so doing, I > think he (and Steedman before him) were raising > the issue of Ockham's razor as a way of choosing > between alternative theories of political economy. > I don't agree that this is necessarily the best > question to be asking (see above), but I think > it is reasonable to ask how in the lack of clear > empirical evidence that supports one theory and > negates another (very rare in political economy) > or lacking a clear logical inconsistency or > fallacy by one theory (as is often claimed -- > but infrequently proved) how one *does* > (without resorting to authority, i.e. without > resorting to the assumption that in the lack > of clear evidence to the contrary Marx was > 'right', or political claims, i.e. claiming that > one theory is preferable to another because of > supposed political advantages of one > perspective [which runs the danger of introducing > a 'bias' into what purports to be an analysis of > the law(s) of motion of capitalism]) compare > and critically evaluate alternative perspectives > of the political economy of capitalism? > > Any thoughts? Anyone? > > In solidarity, Jerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nicola taylor" > Subject: [OPE-L:5487] Re: Re: Counteracting factors (snip, JL) > > > > Is the conceptual problem with Jerry's reformulation, or is it with a > > labour embodied value theory? Suppose that money is not a commodity but > > pure form (having no labour-value substance); i.e. money is a more > concrete > > determination of value, and price as it's complete and finished > expression. > > Then price *is* value, at a different level of determination. Now > suppose > > that labour-power is not a commodity (since it is produced *outside* of > > capitalist relations of production, in the household); then it makes no > > sense to think about the wage as a 'value' or a monetary equivalent to the > > subsistence bundle of reproducing labour-power as a commodity. Rather the > > wage is determined by supply and demand, by workers struggles, and by > state > > intervention. Now, if labour-power and money are not commodities in the > > sense described by Marx (Marx's own condition being that commodities are > > produced within capitalist relations of production), then the triple > prices > > represent a fall in the purchasing power of the wage (yes, in the > > neoclassical sense), therefore, a redistribution from the working consumer > > to the capitalist class. > > > > A theory that affords ontological primacy to what goes on in production > > does not, imo, provide an adequate understanding of oligopolistic > behaviour > > or the changes in contemporary capitalism (if Jerry is saying something > > similar, then I agree with him). In my own view, the reason for this is > > that money is not given any ontological significance in the orthodox > > abstract-labour theory of value, but is opposed to value as merely > > phenomenal form. So the redistribution from worker to capitalist can only > > be theorised as a redistribution of use-values. This is wrong. The > > capitalist economy is clearly 'form-determined' - at very least in the > > sense that capitalists make an 'ideal precommensuration' in *money terms*, > > before purchasing labour-power for *money wages*, and allocating it to > > particular industries. What is needed to understand the complex > > interrelation of production and consumption in the reproduction of the > > system, then, is a systematic dialectical reconstruction of Marx's core > > categories, answering to the question of *how* value and abstract labour > > are determined not as substance, but as historically specific capitalist > > *forms*. -- Paul Cockshott paul@cockshott.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT