Re: [OPE] The Labour theory of Value: A Marginal Analysis

Hagendorf’s paper seems to make the mistake of substituting "the ratio between price and labor value" (which should be equal to unity) with "the marginal labor value”. I’ll put Hagendorf’s paper in my readings plan (where is Zachariah’s paper), but in principle I think that Hagendorf makes the mistake of assimilating a heterogeneous unit of account (labor) with another homogeneous unit (subjective value). One of the objections of Ludwig von Mises to the labor theory of value was that the temporal dimension of labor hides different qualities of the substantive labor effectively implemented, while market prices are sensitive to these differences through the utility provided by goods and services judged from the standpoint of the consumer. Although Marx distinguished between simple and complex labor, the distinctions made for accounting purposes will never be able to account for the infinite differences in substantive work. I believe that one of the virtues of the model of Cottrell and Cockshott is that it overcomes this problem relying on a consumer market, namely a subjective theory in operation.   Yours, A. Agafonow ----- Mensaje original ---- De: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> Para: ope@lists.csuchico.edu Enviado: domingo, 7 de septiembre, 2008 19:21:12 Asunto: [OPE] The Labour theory of Value: A Marginal Analysis This article - dated August, 28, 2008 -  by Klaus Hagendorf is *attached*. The url had been circulated on the 'marxism-thaxis' list by Jim Farmelant.   >From the conclusion:   "We have shown that modern economics is built upon the labour theory of value and in fact has made it more consistent. It is high time to turn the theory in this sense against the apologetics of capitalism."   In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sun Sep 7 14:28:19 2008