Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

Hi Michael

Thanks for the help, especially the pointer to the phrase "antecedent
labour". I did a quick search for this phrase in the MIA:

http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search!&as_epq=antecedent+labour&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=

But after chasing up all these references it wasn't obvious to me that
Marx was using a concept of historical labor-value.

Is Hodgskin particularly clear on the importance of using replacement
rather then historical labor costs?

Do you argue that prior to the Civil War cotton famine Marx was using
a historical concept of labor-cost, but after that moved towards
reproduction costs?

I need to re-read Ricardo with this question in mind: but I wonder if
anyone knows where Ricardo falls on this issue?

Thanks,
-Ian.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Michael
Perelman<michael@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> Marx used historical labor prices when describing the production of an
> individual economy -- what he called antecedent labor.
>
> Marx especially in v. 2, Marx turned to coexisting labor, based on the work
> of Thomas Hodgskin.
>
> In my book, Karl Marx's Crises Theories, I make the case that Marx became
> more sensitive to reproduction costs in light of the Civil War cotton
> famine.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Aug 31 20:58:06 2009