And then Alejandro commented:
> So, it seems completely clear to me that Andrew is maintaining that
> the value of the widget is 100 labor-hours at 9 p.m. and,
> consequently, I don''t understand why Jerry is still saying that
> Andrew''s example "suggest that *value* was increased without the
> expenditure of living and/or dead labour." If value "was increased",
> then Andrew would say that it is > than 100 labour-hours at 9 p.m.
> So, I don''t see why in Andrew''s example "the Sun" would create
> value, as Jerry says.
I think that the "time delay" issue is a dodge.
There is only a "time delay" here because:
a) there is, by assumption, no living labour employed in the drying
process.
b) the drying process is, because of the above, held to be post-working
time. If living labour was employed in the drying process (i.e. if a)
is rejected), then wouldn't the drying process then be considered to be
*part* of the working period?
c) it is assumed that there is no constant capital in the drying process
and, therefore, value can't be transferred from the means of
production.
In other words, he can claim a time delay only because he has excluded by
assumption the other possibilities.
In solidarity, Jerry