> "If one is to talk of the equivalence of prices and values
> in any substantive way, value must be _defined_
> independently of price; and of course we find this -- value
> is defined in terms of socially necessary labour-time.
> Equivalence is clearly not "the basis of his definition of
> value"
>
> I find this statement immensely positive.
I'm glad that Alan finds something positive in my last posting, and
while in the mode of registering agreements, let me say this:
Although I am ready to argue for the importance of the empirical
work showing a close approximation to value-price equivalence at
industry level, I do not hold that Marx's general, aggregative
theory of exploitation (the ultimate source of profit is the
exploitation of labour) stands or falls with these correlations,
My reasons for thinking the correlations important will have to
wait -- I am writing this by candlelight on a battery-operated
portable in the middle of the worst ice storm to hit the
Eastern USA in a long time, and will stop while the going is
good!
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University