Re: [OPE] Market socialism [the false assumption of the law of value]

wrighti@acm.org

> If I were not arguing against labour theory, you all fellow friends
> would had rejected the transformation thesis so much time ago.

I don't quite understand you here. If you are saying that the
"transformation problem" is a critique of the LTV then I agree -- it is
indeed a critique.

But as far as I understand it your argument against the LTV in this
thread is that consumer and entrepreneurial activity result in changes
to the objective cost structure and therefore -- and here's the jump
that I do not understand -- the LTV is false. I am trying to point out
that this is not an argument against the LTV.

> PS. Come on! I’m not using an involved vocabulary. FEASIBLE: “Capable of
> being accomplished or brought about; possible”. FEASIBILITY: “the
> quality of being usable”.

That's what I guessed, but I wanted to have a clear understanding of
your thoughts. You wrote that: "To proclaim the attractor function, you
have to believe in the feasibility of natural or production prices."

I *do not* believe that simple prices (or prices of production for that
matter) are feasible in the sense you define. But I *do* believe that
labour-values are attractors for prices.

To pursue the bird analogy, market prices are "always flying".

So you don't yet understand my position. We've discussed this before. I
recommended then that you read Bhaskar's "A realist theory of science".
He will do a better job than I can to explain the difference between
generative mechanisms and empirical reality.

Best wishes,
-Ian.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope