> WHEN ONE STIPULATES THAT THE VALUE (PRICE) OF A COMMODITY MUST BE THE
> SAME AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE LABOR-TIME NEEDED
> FOR ITS PRODUCTION HAS CHANGED, ONE HAS STIPULATED THAT LABOR-TIME
> IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF ITS VALUE (PRICE).
Andrew, I'm genuinely puzzled: Who has ever made this stipulation? On
the "standard view" values change whenever the techniques of production
change in such a way as to alter socially-necessary labour-content.
Whether the change is considered "retroactive", so to speak, depends on
how one calculates the labour-content (historic or current), but that's a
secondary issue. Even Torrens -- who, in his corn example, assumed that
the value of corn _did_ remain unchanged (constant conditions of
production) -- never said it _must_ remain the same regardless of labour
requirements.
Allin.