From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri Dec 28 2007 - 12:46:49 EST
> What I am really looking for is a more systematic phenomenological > theoretisation of what is actually involved qua cognitive assumptions, > both subjectively, intersubjectively and objectively, in trade or > calculation using prices, including what is involved when one moves from > real prices to ideal prices, and vice versa. > As I've argued before, generally economics assumes > (1) that all prices are self-evidently in the same object-class, > (2) that it is possible to manipulate price information and compute price > aggregates without any reference to value relations that exist > independently from prices. > What if those assumptions are ontologically not true? What I've argued > previously is, for instance, that all accounting presupposes or implies > some kind of value theory, but I wonder if anybody has actually fleshed > out that idea much more systematically and explicitly. Hi Jurriaan: This is an example of a type of question which can only be satisfactorily flushed out with reference to differing levels of abstraction, imo. > The relevance of this problem is that whereas many Marxist theorists swear > by value theory, almost nobody can explain coherently why it is necessary. > The neo-Ricardian challenge is essentially a defence of double-entry > bookkeeping, with an ethic about the utility and efficiency of > information. If you need to explain X, certain price data are sufficient > to explain it, and no reference to values is necessary. Defense of double-entry bookkeeping? Please explain. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST