Re: [OPE-L] Question

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Tue Apr 10 2007 - 12:11:19 EDT

• Next message: David Laibman: "[OPE-L] The Two Laibmans!"
• Previous message: Michael Perelman: "Re: [OPE-L] The Use-Value & SNLT Question"
• In reply to: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] Question"
• Next in thread: Allin Cottrell: "Re: [OPE-L] Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> Its not only a mistake, it simply cannot be done.

I have read your paper Ajit, but your critique is based on an
incorrect measure of labour-costs.
It "cannot be done" if one adopts the standard definition of
labour-value, which ignores the commodity money-capital. But this
standard definition is only an appropriate measure of labour-costs in
the context of simple commodity production. In contrast, if one
includes money-capital, then in self-replacing equilibrium prices of
production are proportional to labour-values, and  labour-embodied
equals the labour-commanded by commodities.

• Next message: David Laibman: "[OPE-L] The Two Laibmans!"
• Previous message: Michael Perelman: "Re: [OPE-L] The Use-Value & SNLT Question"
• In reply to: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] Question"
• Next in thread: Allin Cottrell: "Re: [OPE-L] Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT