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