From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 09:18:16 EST
Hi Ajit, Am afraid am not clear on what you are insisting - would be clearer if you explained your own view of the quantitative relation between price and labour time -- you never know we may even agree about this! Many thanks, Andy -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha Sent: Fri 25/03/2005 10:23 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity --- Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote: > Hi, > > Likewise quickly, > > There would be no use, nor truth, in the LTV if > there were no quantitative relation between price > and labour time. My point is simply that it doesn't > need to be an exact proportional relation. Your > theoretical point boils down to making the far too > bold claim that absent exact proportionality there > can be no theory. __________________________ I guess now you have a private meaning of "proportionality" too. Because I have never insisted on any kind of proportionality. As a matter of fact in your proposition, which I'm criticising, proportionality has no meaning. Your proposition is that a change in prices is related to a change in labor-time in the same direction. I'm simply questioning this proposition and the basis of this proposition. Where is the question of proportionality here? ______________________ You keep asking about how labour > time and price are related. But we know the answer: > it is through the processes of competition, i.e. > through the mechanism of the 'invisible hand'. ___________________ This again makes no sense. You need to show how the "invisible hand" relates labor-time to price magnitutes, if it does any such thing. Failing which your theory becomes invisible and the poor invisible hand cannot lend you any helping hand. __________________________ > > Yes, there are qualitaive as well as quantitative > reasons for the LTV (basically any society has to > determine labour allocation, in our society this is > thorugh price). _______________________ But basically every society has to determine land allocation too. Why shouldn't we have a Land Theory of Value? In my earlier posts I had forgotten to mention one point about your example of incommensurability of the two vectors. As a matter of fact your two vectors would be "incommensurable" as long as the quantity of some goods (or one good) are higher or some (or one) are lower in the two vectors. You don't need any "new good" for incommensurability in your own case. Thus for your own argument, "new good" is simply extraneuous and irrelevant. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 30 2005 - 00:00:02 EST