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

alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es

WRIGHT: «Let's say we have a ball in a bowl. The ball is moving around the side of the bowl. Over time its trajectory gravitates toward the bottom of the bowl, at which point it will be at rest. You are saying that a human hand frequently intervenes to push the ball this way and that in an unpredictable manner. But from this observation you conclude that there is no force that pushes the ball toward the bottom of the bowl.»

Not exactly. We conclude that since it is reasonable to expect the continue intervention of this human hand, the force that pushes the ball toward the bottom of the bowl is of secondary importance in a market economy. If we were wrong, we were in presence of market economies in equilibrium, showing uniform profits only differentiated by the composition of capital. But this doesn’t happen.

WRIGHT, could you please respond too? Is this the goal of most Marxists: fixing labour tokens proportional to labour values and casting aside prices? Is it your goal too?

Kind regards,A. Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Ian Wright <wrighti@acm.org>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: jueves, 10 de julio, 2008 20:07:36
Asunto: Re: [OPE] Market socialism [the false assumption of the law of value]

> So you are in a position similar to the “imperfect competition” trend of
> neoclassical economics. They don’t expect a final Pareto equilibrium,
> but they don’t understand the usefulness of disequilibria as I said
> about you in this mailing list and in my paper.
> 
>  
> 
> Have I to repeat my criticism to your social error signals?

What I have been trying to communicate is that the concept of an
attractor is essential to understand the trajectory of a dynamical
system *even if the system never reaches its attractor*.

Let me try to put in another way.

Let's say we have a ball in a bowl. The ball is moving around the side
of the bowl. Over time its trajectory gravitates toward the bottom of
the bowl, at which point it will be at rest.

You are saying that a human hand frequently intervenes to push the ball
this way and that in an unpredictable manner.

But from this observation you conclude that there is no force that
pushes the ball toward the bottom of the bowl.

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

      ______________________________________________ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.

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