From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Apr 11 2007 - 08:06:17 EDT
> That, I believe, is a mistake: it is warping the definition of > value to match market price (hence my "dissolving" comment). Hi Allin: This makes no sense to me. To say that for a commodity to represent value it must have use-value is not at all the same proposition as saying that value is identical to price. Also, to say that for a commodity to represent value that value must come to be expressed through price is not the same as saying that value is identical to price. To say that the quantity of SNLT and value can only be known ex post (following the sale of the commodities) is not the same proposition as saying that value is identical to price. One can hold all of the above propositions (no use value, no value; no exchange-value and price, no value; SNLT and value only actualized following exchange) and still believe that there is (generally) a difference between the value of a commodity and its price. All I of this is quite different from saying that the price that each commodity sells for is equal to its value; to say that each commodity _has_ a price is different from claiming that the price of each commodity equals its value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT