From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 18:05:02 EST
Andrew Brown wrote: > Hi, > > (1) I would be very interested to know your theoretical explanation > for the correlations that you obtain. > This is a very difficult question. At one level I would explain it by saying that labour is overwhelmingly the main non-produced input to capitalist commodities, and as such it will tend to drive the price system. It is the signal that shows through the noise of random market fluctuations. Another factor one has to explain is why the attractive force of labour values is at least as strong as, if not stronger than the attractive force of prices of production ( the price vector is at an angle in between the value vector and the price of production vector ). I would explain this in probabalistic/darwinian terms. The probability of reproduction of a firm whose selling price falls below labour costs is very low. This constrains almost all of the population of firms to be selling at a price above prime costs. F and M show that if one makes the very conservative assumption that the distribution of the prices relative to labour costs is gamma, then this forces just the observed correlation between prices and labour values. There will also be a tendancy for firms whose rate of profit is below the mean to be less likely to survive than those whose profit is above the mean, but this pressure is less strong than the previously mentioned one. This I think explains why the price vector is between the value and price of production vector. > > (2) Have there been significant criticisms of your own, and other > people's, results? Am I right in thiniking Andrew Kliman has offered > some criticisms? Yes a paper by him appeared in the Cambridge Journal, Allin and I have submited a reply to him which has been accepted for publication. If you look at the archives there was a debate on this a year or so ago which covered much of what was published by him. Our reply is based on an extension of the arguments that I made in the OPE debate. > > Thanks > > Andy > > Date sent: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:31:00 +0000 > From: clyder@gn.apc.org > To: artefact@webcom.com, Michael Eldred <artefact@t-online.de> > Copies to: "OPE, List" <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > Subject: [OPE-L:8089] Re: Re: Heisenberg, Marx and the uncertainty principle > Send reply to: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > > > Quoting Michael Eldred <artefact@t-online.de>: > > > > I would seriously dispute this. There is now a growing body > > > > of empirical literature which indicates a very close > > > > correspondance between actual sectoral prices in economies and the > > > > correponding labour values. The correlations revealed are > > > > remarkably strong by economic standards. > > > > > > Interesting caveat: "by economic standards", also echoed by Paul > > > Cockshott's qualification: "as economic theories go". How do they > > > go? > > > > Clyder and Paul Cockshott are the same person using different email > > accounts. > > > > The correlations that I have obtained, give R^2 values of over > > 0.95 between sectoral labour values and sectoral prices. Shaik and > > Ochoa get similar results. > > > > The results seem robust between countries, to my knowledge there > > is published data on the UK, USA, Italy, Jugoslavia an Mexico which > > give comparable results. Steedman has published results for Ireland > > and one of the Australian lander which give lower correlations but > > this is not unexpected given the greater influence of shot noise in > > smaller samples and also the influence of rent in these economies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would contend that economists rejection of the labour theory of > > > > value draws more from bourgeois class interest - horrified at the > > > > moral consequences of accepting it - than any scientific > > > > objectivity. > > > > > > > > > If established, such a quantitative law would have > > > > > indeed > > > > > provided the foundation for a ?theory of motion? of capitalist > > > > > economy > > > and > > > > > allowed reliable, predictive mathematical calculation of its > > > > > movements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been established so the rest of your argument falls. > > > > > > You find what you look for -- just as Galileo did when he rolled > > > balls on inclined planes. That's the way science in the modern age > > > works: it sets up its experiments to interrogate what is then given > > > to the set-up by way of data. It is successful precisely because it > > > does not question its preconceptions. > > > > > > > I think this is unfair on the empirical researchers. Until Shaik did > > his investigations I don't think anyone expected to get such a close > > fit between values and prices. His results certainly did not fit in > > with anyones initial preconceptions. They are so counter to the > > preconceptions of economists that their implications are only > > gradually being realised. It took considerable courage on his part to > > question the preconceptions that abounded about the labour theory of > > value being empirically invalid and ask : lets see if it really is > > invalid? > > > > It is my experience of doing empirical investigations that they almost > > always teach you something new that would not have occured to you had > > you not gone to the trouble of doing them. > > > > > The phenomenon and experience of exchange -- and thus also its > > > concept -- is richer than you think. > > > > > > > I am sure that this is true, but unless you investigate actual price > > data you are left speculating about the properties of prices. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST