On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, you wrote: > In response to this passage from me, > > >>> Let's pursue that point a second. Do you accept the possibility that > >>> profit-seeking capitalists would choose among available production > >>> techniques based on relative prices of inputs (so as to minimize costs)? > >>> And if so, since the choice of production techniques determines the direct > >>> and indirect abstract labor requirements for production, wouldn't it be > >>> more appropriate to say that prices "come before" total value? > > AR [6375] writes: > > >And, what are those ghost-like "production techniques"? Who DID produce > >them? How? How is it that they are "available"? Did they drop from the sky? > >In a real, historical capitalist society, what should "come before" if we > >are going to have "production techniques" and "prices"? > > I'm puzzled by this response, Alejandro. Are you claiming that answering > these questions would somehow alter the sense of my argument that commodity > values should be understood as at least *interdependent* with commodity > prices, rather than (as Rakesh claimed) analytically *prior* to them? If > not, then these questions, while interesting in their own right, are > necessarily red herrings with respect to the issue at hand. If so, then I > confess I don't see the connection you're suggesting. Condition for prices to influence values independently of technologies is for the i/o matrix to be such that reverse reswitching will occur. Shaik and co workers have shown that empirically this does not occur. -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST