> > 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.
> >-8810
This objection is coherent only in the case of a commodity money. If
one has fiat money the equivalence between aggregate price and value is
of necessity conventional and immutable irrespective of what happens to
individual prices.