Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Mon Feb 27 2006 - 12:34:58 EST

Hi Fred

> Because what Bortkiewicz and Marx mean by "value" are two different
> things.  There is not a shared meaning of "economic value" between them.

Are you saying that the whole tradition of defining labour-value,
independent of price, in terms of vertical integration over an i/o
structure has no "shared meaning" with Marx's concept of SNLT? This
isn't tenable. They are not identical (how could they be?) but there
is definite shared meaning.

> Bortkiewicz means the quantity of labor embodied in commodities:
>         value = (lamda) A  +  L
> Marx's concept of value has three dimensions:  the substance of value
> (abstract labor), the magnitude of value (socially necessary labor-time),
> and the form of appearance of value (money or price).  The dimension of
> value that is most directly relevant to the two aggregate equalities
> is the form of appearance of value.  I argue that the direct price of
> commodities, as analyzed in Volumes 1 and 2 is:
>         price  =  C  +  mL
> Therefore, what Marx means by the form of appearance of value is different
> from Bortkiewicz's concept of value not only because of different units of
> measure, but also because Marx's simple price is not even proportional to
> Bortkiewicz's "value" because C is not proportional to (lamda)A.

Your equation:
prices = cost prices + MELT * new labour
does not define SNLT. It defines prices. How do you define the
labour-value of a commodity independent of price magnitudes?

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 00:00:02 EST