> Jerry wrote, re some Andrew''s post:
> "Since no direct or indirect labour is being performed on the
> widgets after 5 p.m, you are asserting that the additional value
> created after working time was created by *nature* (the Sun in
> particular)."
> I ask Jerry: Do you really think that Andrew was *asserting* that? Do
> you really think that Andrew holds an interpretation of Marx''s theory
> in which the Sun *creates* value?
Yes, I believe that Andrew's *example* implied a condition where the Sun
created value. Of course I don't believe that Andrew believes that nature
alone is the creator of value. That was not my point. Rather, my point was
that the specification and assumptions of Andrew's example led to a
conclusion that was at odds with his interpretation of value and Marx.
Putting the above in context, this objection on my part should come as no
surprise to long-time listmembers. Indeed, we have had oft-stated and
repeated discussions about methodology and assumptions (see especially the
old threads on "assumptions, assumptions, assumptions" and "v=0").
> And I say this because the first reaction I had with
> Andrew''s post was precisely that Jerry had, but I gave a "second
> thought" to the thing. As Mike W. put this in a funny way some days
> ago: "Andrew is not silly".
As you will recall, both Mike W and I were reacting to the same excerpt of
Andrew's post. Indeed Andrew is not silly -- but that does not prevent his
examples/illustrations from the possibility of exhibiting perverse
results and/or specifications.
In solidarity, Jerry