Michael,
I think there is a bit of confusion here.
You write:
(among other things)
>Now let me turn to John Ernst's response to my post. I appreciate his
humor
>about my spelling of "speeds" as "seeds".
>
>I did not quite understand his conclusion, that instantaneous adjustment
>models can work.
>
>Let me make my own position clear for what it is worth. We can fall into
>the trap of refining our models a la neo-classical economics. But that
>effort will not do us any good.
>
>The use of the models is to help us make a qualitative point. For
example,
>on the levels of prices, exploitation does not exist -- at least as most
>economists see it. If I work 8 hours and get 8 hours of wages, everything
>is fair. Value theory lets us understand the roots of exploitation.
>Whether 4.56 or 4.59 hours of my labor is surplus value is something we
>can quibble about, but it will not get us far.
>
>We need our models to help us understand and to communicate.
>
>Maybe I am wrong, and competition makes the adjustment process occur
>quickly. Good, we can talk about it. The answer to that question will
help
>us to understand how the system works.
>
I simply said it might be interesting to look at work that involves
instantaneous
revaluation and that which doesn't. If the same economic structure is
modeled in
each, I suspect that the results would be quite different. I do not think
"measuring
value" necessarily means assuming instantaneous revaluation.
John