In message Wed, 9 Apr 1997 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT),
Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu> writes:
> Paul C wrote in [OPE-L:4685]:
>
>
>> The possibility of demand conditions altering value is ruled out on
>> grounds of theoretical parsimony. If one allows that prices can vary
>> above and below their values in response to demand, it is both
>> indeterminate and unnecessarily complicated to say that the value also
>> changes.
>
> Your statement of "theoretical parsimony" seems to suggest that the two
> positions are equivalent and that one, therefore, selects the position
> which is simpler. We can see that this is _not_ the case if we examine the
> meaning of the so-called "conservation principle." According to that
> principle, which at least some on this list who believe that the magnitude
> of value is determined in production adhere to, once value has been
> created in production its *aggregate* magnitude can not be altered in
> exchange so that value can _only be_ *redistributed*. If one, on the other
> hand, stipulates that while value can not be independently created in
> exchange but that for potential commodities to have value they must
> have *use-value* and that this is validated in exchange, then there can be
> a *decrease* in aggregate value over what we might expect had all
> potential commodities been sold on the market. Thus, the two perspectives
> come-up with different positions on both the determination of value, the
> estimation of the magnitude of aggregate value, and the mathematical
> "determinancy" of the system.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
I agree.
mike
-----------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6
Office (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 872-0494; Home fax (with warning): (604) 872-0485
Lasqueti Island (250) 333-8810