In ope-l 4315, Hans E wrote:
> If scarcity were to affect prices directly, i.e., through deficient
> supply, rather than through labor content, then one should expect
> prices of scarce materials to be above their values.
This is *exactly* the case Marx considers in the passage of the Notes
on Wagner I commented in ope-l 4258. Marx does say (as suggested
by Hans) that "if scarcity were to affect prices directly... then...
prices of scarce materials [will be] above their values" AND (this is
not suggested by Hans) THEREFORE THE PRICE OF OTHER COMMODITIES WILL
FALL BELOW ITS VALUE.
This falling can either compensate or not compensate the "speculative
rising" in the price of "scarce materials". In the latter case --as
is also proposed in the passage of the Notes-- the rising in the
price of scarce commodities will also bring about a *devaluation* of
"symbol-money".
Hans also wrote:
> This discrepancy between prices and values can therefore be
> considered a confirmation of Marxs theory, since it disconfirms
> Marxs theory less than the competing theory.
I think this "discrepancy" in no way and in no degree "disconfirms"
Marx's theory. However, we should understand how is the determination
of value by labor-time actually carried out in these "complex"
(really, this is not a "complex" situation, but a very common
phenomenon) situations. In Notes... Marx suggests that this process is
accomplished through modifications in the relationship between value-
substance (labor-time) and value-form (money).
It seems important to stress that, in Marx's analysis, "scarcity" and
"labor content" are NOT conceived as "separated factors" determining
value as, perhaps, Hans's wording could suggest: "If scarcity were to
affect prices directly, i.e., through deficient supply, rather than
through labor content..."
Alejandro Ramos M.
11.3.97