From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Jun 13 2004 - 09:11:25 EDT
--- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > > You asked me how do I measure the L in Marx's labor > theory of value? > I answered that the total current labor-time is > taken as given, including > adjustments for different skills and unequal > intensities. __________________ My question is what do you mean by "given"? Let's leave the skill part aside--it's just unnecessary complication. ______________________ > > Then you asked how do I EMPIRICALLY MEASURE the L in > Marx's theory. > And I answered that, one CANNOT EMPIRICALLY MEASURE > the L in Marx's > theory, because that L is a SOCIAL AVERAGE, socially > necessary labor-time, > not actual labor-times that are observable. ____________________ But we all know that averages are generally observed, but there is well known and accepted methods of deriving averages from given data. So to say you cannot empirically measure it is wrong. _________________________ > > And I asked you in turn: does you question about how > L is empirically > measured indicate that, in your view, a theory of > price must be in terms > of observable variables only? __________________ No. I don't think so. The neo-classical theory has a theory of demand that is based on the notion of utility that is not observable. ______________________ > Forget the positivism (I was just trying to put this > question in a broader > philosophical context), and please answer this > question: do you think that > a theory of price must be in terms of observable > variables only? _________________ Not necessarily! Sorry for a delayed response. Our internet was down for few days. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 14 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT