David L. in #4837:
> Then, *unit*
> values fall toward zero, but the *ratio* of unit values (relative
> prices) do not. (Once again, the focus on total rather than unit
> values is a sloppy habit of thought that is shared by many critics
> and ultra-defenders of Marx alike.)
Alejandro asks:
Are you suggesting that only "relative prices" matter? Is this a kind
of "Baileyian approach" where value IS exchange value, lacking of
substance? If this is so, how can you "deal with" Marx's observations
on Bailey in Theories, Part III? Has Marx also this "sloppy habit of
thought" when he maintains that value has a "substance", a "common
denominator"? Had Bailey "extirpated" this "sloppy habit" when
reduced value to exchange value?
Sorry for the "question form" but it is easy to imagine what are
my "positive answers" to this. However, I am not sure about the
implications of your above statement. This is the aim of my questions.
Alejandro R.