Paul, I'm not sure when I wrote what you cite. At any rate,
let me respond to your comment.
At 05:36 PM 4/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 16:25 26/03/97 -0800, John Ernst wrote:
>
>>Not so fast. Responding to Alan's question, you state (see below)
>>that "if the entire branch enjoys doubled productivity, then the
>>answer is easy: the value is the same." Why? Are we to say that
>>competition will automatically lower the social value to the
>>individual value? Why? It seems to me that we cannot simply
>>assert that this fall takes place once the new technique is
>>adopted by all in the industry; rather, we have to show the how's
>>and why's. I see no reason why the individual value created in
>>the industry cannot differ from the social value even after the
>>new more productive technique is used by all.
>
Paul wrote in OPE-L 4883
>Confusion of value with exchange value.
>
>Value the same by definition. Exchange value of total product
>may be slightly higher or lower than before, but, under the
>assumptions given - that the same number of workers are employed -
>the mean of the pdf of expected values will be the same as before.
>
>
John responds:
I wish things were that simple. Marx states:
"The real value of a commodity is, however, not its individual value,
but its social value; that is to say, the real value is not measured
by the labour-time that the article in each case costs the producer,
but by the labour-time socially required for its production."
If there were confusion on my part, it is not one involving exchange
value and value; but rather one involving social value and individual
value.
John